Republicans Poised to Allow Senate Debate on Financial Overhaul Bill

By GottaLaff

All I've gotten so far is a news alert from Fox:

Republicans Poised to Allow Senate Debate on Financial Overhaul Bill

So forcing the Party of No to actually stand up and filibuster in front of the whole wide world worked. Remember this day, Dems.

UPDATE, via another e-mail:

	WASHINGTON (AP) Republicans say they are ready to allow financial overhaul bill to be debated in Senate.

UPDATE:

Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking committee, said he has assurances that Democrats will adjust his banking regulation bill to address concerns that it perpetuates bailouts. [...]

But McConnell and other Republican critics are now focusing their objections on Dodd's proposal to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.

Extension of jobless benefits clears GOP roadblock

By GottaLaff

I just love winning skirmishes. Skirmish-winning is my favorite pastime. Especially when it's against the Rushpublics. Especially when it provides badly needed benefits to jobless Americans.

Especially when it means another Democratic victory:

Democrats in the Senate won an initial skirmish Monday to restore unemployment benefits to hundreds of thousands of jobless people despite Republican criticism that it would add $9 billion to the nation's debt.

The 60-34 vote killed a GOP filibuster against debating the measure, which would extend jobless benefits through May 5 along with short-term extensions of several other lapsed programs.

Hmm, I wonder if anyone from the right side of the aisle voted with the Dems.

Uh-oh. Scott "Pink Leather Shorts" Brown did. Again. What will the Tea Tantrumers say?

Collins and three other Republicans - Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and George Voinovich of Ohio - voted Monday to advance the short-term measure.

What mavericks. Maybe that's where John McCain's nickname went.

As for all the GOP whining about deficits:

"Unemployment extensions have always been considered emergency spending, and there's a reason for that," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "Unemployment insurance is a form of stimulus, but offsetting the extension of this program would negate the stimulative impact. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul."

Kill the fil!

VIDEO- Lester & Charlie: Filibuster Fever!

By GottaLaff

To really understand how silly this filibustering ritual is, our pals Lester & Charlie envisioned a world where all of us could get away with it in daily life:



Watch to the very very end.

Scott Brown bucks party to end filibusters

By GottaLaff

Get a load of Mr. Independence:

Brown took to the Senate floor Tuesday to announce he would vote for cloture, or to end a Republican filibuster, on a bill extending unemployment benefits and tax credits. This, despite the fact he opposes the bill and technically the filibuster helped his cause.

"I have very serious concerns about the overall cost of the bill," Brown told the chamber, "but my vote for cloture signals that I believe we need to keep the process moving." He also said, "there has been a week of debate and allowing this bill to receive an up-and-down vote, would be a step, I feel, in the right direction."

With Brown’s help, the nearly $140 billion bill cleared the procedural hurdle on a vote of 66-34, setting it up for passage.

I keep waiting for another shoe to drop. I'm not even sure what that meant, but suffice it to say Brown makes me uneasy. Maybe it's the SenatorFold, or the $750 pink leather shorts.

However, his two helpful votes are greatly appreciated.

BREAKING: Senate stand-off with Senator Bunning is over

By GottaLaff

MSNBC (The Ed Show) is reporting that the stand off is over. Bunning agreed to allow a vote on one amendment that would pay for the $10 billion cost of the package, he won't object. He'll have a chance to have 2 amendments on the larger package.

Roll Call has more:

In the end Bunning agreed to a deal allowing him one vote on an amendment to pay for the bill’s $10 billion cost. That proposal was offered by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last Thursday at the start of his filibuster, but Bunning rejected it because he feared his amendment would not pass.

Reid has also agreed to give Bunning two votes on amendments to a larger, one-year extension bill that is currently under consideration in the Senate.

Bunning has put a hold on all of President Obama's nominees. Senate Democrats were threatening to hold an all night session, "forcing Bunning into an actual filibuster by repeatedly offering up unanimous consent agreements to bring the bill to a vote."

An actual filibuster? Senate Democrats May Force All Night Session

By GottaLaff

So blocking the blockage gives us the "political upper hand". Wouldn't it be more effective to get the upper hand via our own maneuvering, compelling messaging, stiffening our spines, and passing legislation without continually caving to the Obstructionist Party?

"Democrats are hoping to turn the procedural tables on Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) and use Senate rules to break his blockade against an extension of unemployment insurance, including possibly forcing a round-the-clock session," Roll Call reports.

"Newly energized Democrats, who believe they have gained the political upper hand thanks to Bunning's one-man crusade against the short-term benefits extension, rejected outright a Republican proposal to allow three votes on pay-fors for the bill before a vote on final passage. Bunning has demanded the measure, which would run for one month at a cost of $10 billion, be paid for." [...]

This time, it is increasingly likely that Democrats will force Bunning into an actual filibuster by repeatedly offering up unanimous consent agreements to bring the bill to a vote.

Where were these same Democrats a year ago? Six months ago? Six days ago?

Better late than never, I suppose. Or, too little too late?

Bunning Blockade Leads To 21% Pay Cut To Doctors

By GottaLaff

Not only did Jim Bunning block the (temporary) extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits for the unemployed, scream at reporters, and flip them off, he was also is responsible for cutting pay to doctors:

[I]ncluded in that package is legislation to prevent a mandatory pay cut for doctors--and by standing in it's way, he's triggered a 21 percent fee reduction to doctors seeing Medicare patients starting today.

Attaboy. Keep up the good work. Stay classy.

Bunning Flips the Bird + VIDEO: "Excuse me! This is a Senator's only elevator!"

By GottaLaff



I got wind of this little incident on Twitter. Now here's the story itself... of the lovely, genteel, screw-America Jim Bunning:

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) refused to answer questions from ABC News about his decision to filibuster a bill extending unemployment benefits.

Said Bunning: "I'm not talking to anybody."

When producers asked him to stay and talk on camera, Bunning "walked toward the elevator and shot the middle finger over his head."

Ohhh, what I'd give for a clip of that!

Nothing like offending your fellow citizens, causing them even more pain, and alienating the press, Ace.

Stee-rike three! Or four. Or five. I'm losing track.

Isn't he just the best role model ever?

Evan Bayh: "A filibuster should be reduced to 55 from 60"

By GottaLaff

Evan has a piece in the New York Times about why he's leaving the Senate.

Oh, and just Bayh the way:

Today, the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to stop a vote; senators are rarely asked to pull all-nighters like Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

For this reason, filibusters should require 35 senators to sign a public petition and make a commitment to continually debate an issue in reality, not just in theory. Those who obstruct the Senate should pay a price in public notoriety and physical exhaustion. That would lead to a significant decline in frivolous filibusters.

Filibusters should also be limited to no more than one for any piece of legislation. Currently, the decision to begin debate on a bill can be filibustered, followed by another filibuster on each amendment, followed by yet another filibuster before a final vote. This leads to multiple legislative delays and effectively grinds the Senate to a halt.

What’s more, the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster should be reduced to 55 from 60. During my father’s era, filibusters were commonly used to block civil rights legislation and, in 1975, the requisite number of votes was reduced to 60 from 67. The challenges facing the country today are so substantial that further delay imperils the Republic and warrants another reduction in the supermajority requirement.

Now that he's leaving, he gets it.

Health Care Watch: Obama goes all reconciliation on us

By GottaLaff

Did I hear right? Pinch me, quick:

Democratic officials tell the New York Times that President Obama's health care proposal "was being written so that it could be attached to a budget bill as a way of averting a Republican filibuster in the Senate. The procedure, known as budget reconciliation, would let Democrats advance the bill with a simple majority rather than a 60-vote supermajority."

The bill will be posted online Monday in advance of the president's bipartisan health care summit on Thursday.

Said a Democratic aide: "It will be a reconciliation bill. If Republicans don't come with any substantial offers, this is what we would do."

Let's just hope the bill is one we can support.

Now about that public option...

VIDEO- Rachel Maddow: "We are smack in the middle of an unprecedented abuse of the filibuster"

By GottaLaff

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's President Obama's track record:

President Obama set a new record last year for getting Congress to vote his way, clinching 96.7 percent of the votes on which he had clearly staked a position.

That was a bit less than 4 percentage points higher than the previous record, set by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, according to an annual study by Congressional Quarterly.

Here's the GOP track record:

And if you need a reminder about Rushpublic hypocrisy, here's Rachel at her best.

VIDEO: While Obama Making Plans to Use Executive Power, Rachel Maddow Plans a Filibuster Challenge

By GottaLaff

Here's a thought: A presidential directive to remove all the Rushpublics from Congress.

Okay, daydream over. God I hate reality sometimes. It gets in the way of my fantasies:

With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities. [...]

“We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat. And Mr. Obama’s success this week in pressuring the Senate to confirm 27 nominations by threatening to use his recess appointment power demonstrated that executive authority can also be leveraged to force action by Congress. [...]

But Mr. Obama has to be careful how he proceeds because he has been critical of both Mr. Clinton’s penchant for expending presidential capital on small-bore initiatives, like school uniforms, and Mr. Bush’s expansive assertions of executive authority, like the secret program of wiretapping without warrants. [...]

Another drawback of the executive power strategy is that actions taken unilaterally by the executive branch may not be as enduring as decisions made through acts of Congress signed into law by a president.[...]

But the White House argued that Mr. Obama’s choices have been held up more than Mr. Bush’s and left open the prospect of giving recess appointments to some of those still held up, including Craig Becker, a labor lawyer whose nomination for a seat on the National Labor Relations Board has been blocked.

“If the stalling tactics continue,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, “he’s not ruling out using recess appointments for anybody that he’s nominated.”

Good. About time. Do it. I want Dawn Johnsen in. Now.

Meantime, Rachel Maddow has her own ideas: The Filibuster Challenge.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"Restoration of majority rule": Tom Harkin, Jeanne Shaheen eye filibuster reform

By GottaLaff

Finally, it's possible that a Democratic meme is about to be born. Steve Benen has a good piece up about reforming (what has become the abuse of) the filibuster :

Harkin and his new co-sponsor will kick off a new effort to allow the legislative branch of the government to function again. A press statement from Harkin's office reads:

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) will be joined by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) at a press conference this afternoon following the introduction of their bill to reform Senate rules that have been abused by the minority to create record gridlock. Senator Harkin introduced a similar bill in 1995, when the Democratic Party was in the minority.

"In an economic climate that has been devastating for Americans, it's time for the Senate to get moving on a jobs bill, on financial regulatory reform, and on health care," Senator Harkin said. "The minority party has ground Senate business to a halt by abusing the rules, and it's time to reform the process."

In the 1950s, there was an average of one filibuster per Congress. Last Congress, motions were filed to end filibusters a record 139 times, and they continue at a similar pace through 2009 (67 cloture motions last year).

[...]. Harkin proposes a new procedural model: the first go-around, the minority could demand a 60-vote majority, as is the case now. But if 60 votes aren't there to end debate, a week or so later, 57 votes could bring the bill to the floor for a vote. If 57 votes aren't there, it drops again and again, and after a month or so, a bare majority could approve cloture.

Benen makes a great point:

Also note, the existence of the legislation creates an opportunity for a larger public debate.

Then he makes an even better one:

My suggestion to Harkin's office is to come up with a helpful frame for the debate. I recommend: "restoration of majority rule."

Easy to understand, hard to challenge, and appealing. Let's run with it and help the Dems control the message for once.

Blame the Republicans

By GottaLaff

First of all, allow me to rant about this headline that just popped up on MSNBC:

With 59 votes, Dems must seek Republican input

Excuse me, but I need to scream now. Stay where you are for just a second, if you wouldn't mind.

SFX: Fading footsteps....

GAAAAAAAA!!!

SFX: Crescendoing footsteps.

Thanks for waiting.

Dear MSNBC: A 60 Democrat super majority was never synonymous with 60 votes. Blue Dogs are not "real" Democrats. We always needed Republican "input" (translation: votes). Why is that so hard for so many to grasp?

So, yes, Dems need "input", but from both Democrats and Rushpublics. This has always been the case. Had it not been the case, we'd have passed health care reform by now, because all 60 Democrats would have been on board.

Clear? Clear.

Rant over.

The above tantrum, however, does not let the Party of Obstruction off the hook, and President Obama knows it:

"Over the past week, President Obama and his senior aides have repeatedly cited Republicans' filibuster threats as the primary reason for the lack of progress on big ticket legislative items, an early sign that Democrats will seek to use this bit of legislative arcana against the GOP in the coming midterm election," The Fix observes.

"By making the filibuster a political issue, the White House may be hoping to turn the base's anger at the way things are being done in Washington away from an inward focus on the party's unwillingness to change the rules and toward Republicans for their legislative blocking."

I am Laffy and I approve that message.

White House: Shelby’s Obstruction is a Threat To National Security

By GottaLaff

I posted earlier about Richard Shelby's jaw-dropping hostage-taking of 70 of President Obama nominees.

On the Thom Hartmann Show just now, I heard that Robert Gibbs is livid, justifiably so.

Now the White House is going for a twofer: Calling this a national security threat as well as obstruction:

Yesterday, just hours after the Senate voted 96-0 to confirm Martha Johnson as the Administrator of the GSA after a pointless 9-month delay, we learned that Sen. Richard Shelby from Alabama has placed a blanket hold on all nominees, including national security nominees, to use as leverage for some projects in his state. He's holding up 70 nominees, among them top intelligence officials at the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. According to the National Journal, he’s holding them up until two defense contracts that would benefit interests in his state can be fast-tracked.

Let's be clear: Sen. Shelby is preventing qualified nominees who will help protect the American people from being confirmed. He’s not alone, though. This is just the latest example of this kind opposition for opposition’s sake that the President talked about earlier this week.. This strategy of obstruction is preventing qualified people from doing their jobs on behalf of the American people and it’s preventing real work from getting done in Washington. Every minute spent needlessly blocking noncontroversial nominees, many of whom go on to be confirmed by 70 or more votes or by voice vote (nine of the President’s nominees so far), is a minute not spent on the issues that matter to American families.

As I noted yesterday, this is true of the legislative process, too. The Senate cast more votes to break filibusters last year than in the entire 1950s and '60s combined, making it nearly impossible to come to agreement on key legislation.

Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director

Make that a threefer: He threw in the F word: Filibuster.

More like this please.

Vice President Biden ponders filibuster reform

By GottaLaff

Ponder, mull, study, appraise, consider:

"It's a useful tool, it is legitimate. But from my perspective, having served here, elected to the Senate seven times, I've never seen a time when it's become standard operating procedure," Biden said. "You want to get anything done, you have to have a supermajority.

Biden noted that filibusters are not called for in the Constitution and the threshold was changed once before – from 67 votes to 60 votes – when it was "recognized as increasingly difficult" to get bills passed. [...]

Biden said he asked his staff to "scrub" the issue, but said he doesn't have a view as to what a new supermajority should be.

If the Obstructionist Party hadn't abused the filibuster so badly, this wouldn't be a topic of conversation right now.

Three charts worth of proof. I rest my case.

Cloture voting 1947-2008: The Chart-- The White House starts to fight back

By GottaLaff

(click on image to enlarge)

That noise you hear is the increasing rumblings of the White House and Congress members gearing up to fight back against the GOP's abuse of the filibuster.

About time. Louder please.

Here's a video of Rachel Maddow discussing the subject.

And David Axelrod threw in his two cents:

In an interview today with TV One’s Roland Martin, White House senior adviser David Axelrod waded into the controversy:

“The Republican strategy in the Senate is to turn 50 into 60, in other words no longer do you need a majority to carry the day in the Senate. You need 60 votes for everything because the Republicans are filibustering every single bill,” he said. “We need to call that out, and they need to explain to the American people whether throwing a wrench into everything at a time of national emergency is the appropriate policy. They want to win an election and take us back to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place.”

Here's a montage of Sunday rumbles and grumbles about the ongoing obstructionism:

VIDEO- Maddow on filibustering: "Republicans will never, ever, never, ever, ever, never, never, ever support [health care] reform. Ever. Never."

By GottaLaff

Rachel explains things like nobody else can. Clearly, rationally, factually, logically. Case in point:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Filibuster reform bill headed for Senate floor facing uphill battle

By GottaLaff

First of all, everything is an uphill battle these days. Second of all, well, I have no second of all. How's that for pithy? Yep, this flu hasn't affected my brain cells at all....

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) intends in the next few weeks to introduce legislation that would take away the minority’s power to filibuster legislation. [...]

Harkin believes senators in recent years have abused the procedural move.

Harkin’s bill would still allow senators to delay legislation, but ultimately would give the majority the power to move past a filibuster with a simple majority vote.

His staff said the bill would be introduced sometime before the Senate’s current work period ends on Feb. 13.

It takes 67 votes to change Senate rules, so, good luck Tom.

Several liberal activists as well as Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) this week have called for filibuster reform to make it easier for legislation to pass.

So how exactly would Tom's idea work again?

Under Harkin's bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), 60 votes would still be necessary to cut off debate on an initial procedural motion. If senators failed to reach 60 votes, a second vote would be possible two days later that would require only 57 votes to cut off debate. If that also failed, a third vote two days after that would require 54 votes to end debate. A fourth vote after two more days would require just 51 votes.

Well, as long as Traitor Joe's behind it, how could it lose?

Some Democrats want to rein in the filibuster

By GottaLaff

(via)

I keep going back and forth on this one. When we need the filibuster option, we're all for it. If the GOP didn't abuse it and obstruct reflexively, if it wasn't used as a tactic to hijack the legislative process, then would we be having this discussion?

The threat of filibusters has become so common that congressional leaders take it for granted that any bill of consequence will not pass the 100-member Senate with a simple majority of 51. Instead, 60 votes -- the number needed to cut off the interminable speeches of a filibuster -- has become the minimum required.

Original intent be damned. Stating the obvious, this should not be the norm, it should be the exception.

Now, facing the prospect of losing seats in this fall's midterm elections, some Democrats are seeking to change the rules.

Democrats used the filibuster when it suited their purposes, but not to the extent that Republicans are today (see charts):

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) has launched a petition drive urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to push for cutting from 60 to 55 the number of votes needed to cut off a filibuster.

"Why should launching wars and cutting taxes for the rich require only 50 votes, while saving lives requires 60?" asked Grayson, who cited a number of major bills that were passed by the Senate with less than 60 votes while President George W. Bush was in office. [...]

To make it easier to end a filibuster, Harkin has proposed gradually reducing the number of votes needed to cut off debate -- from 60 votes on the first attempt, to 57 votes if another vote is held two days later, and eventually to 51 votes if the debate drags on long enough.

"Under this proposal, a determined minority could slow any bill down," Harkin said in his recent letter to colleagues. "A minority of members, however, could not stymie the majority by grinding the Senate to a halt, as sadly too regularly happens today."

But few senators show much inclination to tamper with a tool that gives enormous leverage to either party when it finds itself in the minority.

And that last sentence brings us right back to my first ones. It all depends on which party is doing the filibustering.

(via)