Hey Democrats, Get On With It

As a vocal centrist (4.00 / 1)

I support every one of these suggestions. Let's do these things now.

Lead. Follow. Or get out of the way. The burden of the middle class will not be diminished by analysis and posturing.

We won. Let's roll.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 14:24:55 PM CST

Create a path to citizenship for the undocumented while taking real steps to inititiate immigration reform to stem the floods of illegal entries. (4.00 / 5)

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 18:53:42 PM CST

Good list (0.00 / 0)

If you use reconciliation, you don't need to revise the filibuster. Also not sure on Becker; I'm all for a recess appointment, but I don't see the point of hanging it on one guy who's already been rejected (seven Democrats bolted too). There's got to be somebody else.

Close Gitmo.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 19:10:43 PM CST

Becker "Lost" (0.00 / 0)

a cloture vote 52 yea to 33 nay - 15 stuck in snow banks.  Given an up or down vote, the 15 snow bankers could have stayed where they were and Becker would be at NLRB.  There are no others who Labor would support that will not get held up by Senate Republicans and Ben Nelson.

Reconciliation for health care reform.  Revise the filibuster for posterity.  Or simply revise the filibuster for all.

If someone can explain how the filibuster improves public policy, I'd happily reconsider.  My perspective is that the Senate without the filibuster provides overarching protections to the minority through equal apportionment.  So revising it does not seem that unreasonable.

---

by: j cicirelli @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 19:28:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He lost (0.00 / 0)

Things could have been done to delay the vote. There was no will to do it.

I'm not ready to give up on the filibuster as a tool. Abuse of it is the problem.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 19:42:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't Cross Trumka, Yo (4.00 / 1)

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, the largest U.S. federation of unions, said members are "calling the White House and demanding" Obama use his executive powers to appoint Becker next week while Congress is in recess. Senate Democrats have been unable to get the 60 votes needed to end Republican efforts that have delayed confirmation of Becker for more than six months.

"President Obama has to end this farce," Trumka said in an e-mailed statement. Not appointing Becker to the board next week is "a big win for the Republicans" and "a big win for corporations."

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 20:13:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't (0.00 / 0)

From that link -- April, as in April 2009.

Obama announced his nomination of Becker to the labor panel, which mediates disputes between companies and employees and certifies union elections, in April.

I don't know why there was no will to get it done, but it's pretty clear that there was no will to get it done.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 20:25:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Rub? (4.00 / 2)

From my previous link, bold mine:

Becker's views have been an issue for business groups because he has the potential to shape labor laws through rulings on the National Labor Relations Board, created in 1935.

Becker wrote a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article saying that union-election rules should be rewritten in favor of labor, and that the NLRB can do this through regulation, without the consent of Congress.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 20:35:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I vacillate on the filibuster (4.00 / 2)

for three reasons:

1. It sure seems like Social Security would have been killed about six years ago, if there were no filibuster.
2. Without it would we keep flip-flopping on major policy issues whenever the Senate flipped from 52-48 to 48-52? ("Medicare Back for Third Time!") Some dampening, some hysteresis, may be a good thing.
3. Since SCOTUS just opened the door wide to corporate purchase of Senate seats, the filibuster is looking more useful.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 20:13:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Me too (4.00 / 1)

Which is why I favor revision over elimination.  Reduce the threshhold to 55 Senators and eliminate the filibuster for all but the most senior cabinet positions.  

It's true that with a revised filibuster the Republicans may have been able to push through SS reform in 2005 - 2007, but it would have required tremendous party discipline and every single Senate vote in the face of public outcry, and a compliant House, so I remain cautiously doubtful.  

At the end of the day, the filibuster just isn't used by Democrats the same way it is used by Republicans.  

---

by: j cicirelli @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 21:31:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dont know anything about that hystereris stuff, but . (4.00 / 4)

But other countries seem to do ok when elections have consequences for all but fundamental rights protected by a constitution.

A social contract has evolved in European democracies that seems to weather the election of both right and left parliamentary majorities.

You either have a democracy or you dont-- you are not allowed the luxury of having consequences for elections only when you win. Sure there are times when gridlock benefits progressive causes, but overall the cost is too great to bear partially because the right is willing to both utilize filibusters and holds 100% of the time, and they are willing to change the rules if they dont get what they want. (See nuclear option on judicial appointments). Do you really think that the right wont do away with the filibuster if they view it as an impediment to what they want in the current environment? (Of course the availibility of a Presidential veto makes the filibuster of less importance in a situation where the President is of a different party than the mojority in Congress).

I don't-- I think what we will have is the use of Senate rules to stop progressive government and a willingness to change the rules when the right deems it convenient. The only reason they didn't blow out the filibuster the last time was that they got what they wanted by merely threatening to do so-- see Alito and Roberts, and all that has resulted.

(BTW I dont recall a filibuster on social security-- my recollection is that the Republican leadership never even scheduled a vote on it because they knew that it would be  a disaster for them. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but if the GOP had been privatized social security six years ago, the subsequent disaster when the market collapsed would have resulted in the elimination of the GOP as a viable political party and social security would have been re-instituted in nanoseconds).

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:59:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There was never a filibuster on health care, either - (4.00 / 3)

All that is needed is the presence of the tool, not even the public threat to use it, to block things.

Nonetheless, I can point to one evil that the filibuster directly brought us: a generation of stasis on civil rights. And I can't recall a beneficial use of it, except that boy's camp in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 17:09:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ezra's take on the filibuster (4.00 / 1)

is spot on.  Key comment at the end:

"And to make one final point on gay rights, it's pretty clear that the filibuster disadvantages the struggle for equality. The legislative status quo is bad for gays. The Defense of Marriage Act, for instance, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In a world with a filibuster, those bills require 60 votes to overturn. In a world without a filibuster, you can do the job with 51. So too for any bill making gay marriage, or even civil unions, the law of the land. Historically, the filibuster has been used to delay equal rights for disadvantaged groups, not to secure or protect them. That's because the filibuster is the dear friend of the status quo, and that's as true today as it's ever been."

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

BTW, I changed my public name not to protect my identity per se, but because I may be in the job market and, well, you know.  I'm not sure what the protocol is for that, but it's not my intention to deceive.


"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein

---

by: StraffordDem @ Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 09:02:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It is spot on. (4.00 / 2)

In discussing the GOP's ability to overcome threatened fiibuster of W's judicial appointments, Klein notes that:

What it shows, rather, is that the rules didn't work for liberals because conservatives were willing to do exactly what Carpentier is telling liberals to avoid doing: Credibly threaten to change the rules.

When only one side feels constrained by procedural rules, it is time to change the procedure.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 09:13:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dodd: It's Senate Chemistry, Not Filibuster (0.00 / 0)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30...

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 20:18:46 PM CST