Kyrsten Sinema's Filibuster Defense Is Factually Untrue

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Jonathan Chait
@jonathanchait
The factual errors in Sinema's op-ed aren't trivial. They're the foundation for her entire defense of the filibuster!

Kyrsten Sinema’s Filibuster Defense Is Factually Untrue
Moderate senator loves the supermajority requirement, doesn’t understand how it works.
nymag.com
6:13 AM · Jun 22, 2021

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/06/kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-senate-defense-factually-untrue.html

*snip*

Almost every specific example she cites here as a possible or actual grounds of defense by the filibuster cannot be protected by the filibuster.

The reason is that the Senate has work-arounds for the filibuster. One is for confirmation of judges or executive-branch appointments. The other is for bills that change taxes and spending. The latter, called budget reconciliation, can be passed with 51 votes.

Almost every program Sinema cites above is a spending program that can be defunded through budget reconciliation: women’s health, aid to children and families in need, health care, Medicaid, Medicare, women’s reproductive services, funding for federal agencies to protect the environment and education. Several of them have been targeted in budget reconciliation bills.

Budget reconciliation rules do exempt Social Security (an exemption that is itself yet another of the Senate’s arcane, idiosyncratic distinctions that serve no logical purpose — why should Social Security alone have a protection that, say, Medicare and Medicaid don’t?). Likewise, regulations (such as clean air and water) can’t be repealed through budget reconciliation, though their enforcement can be defunded, or simply curtailed through administrative neglect, neither of which is subject to filibustering.

*snip*

[DURHAM D]

1. As I keep saying...

She Is Just Stupid

[brush]

2. She's out of her depth and apparently doesn't know the ins and outs of her...

own argument. The lack of knowledge is unbecoming, as is her stubornness. If she persists in her obstruction to her own party's agenda, perhaps she should be primaried.

And I know, I know of the argument that she's a Dem in a red state. But AZ is turning blue and with her obstruction she's not doing the party much good. We can probably find a sharper knife for the drawer. And wasn't she in the Green party before. That's not saying much for a resume item if you ask me.

[moose65]

8. I don't understand her, either

Just WHO is she trying to please with this? She is already pissing off tons of Democrats. If she's thinking that they'll vote for her because there's no other choice, she's wrong. She could be taken out in a primary.

If she thinks she is pleasing Republicans, she is sadly mistaken. They will vote for a real Republican every time.

[Calista241]

3. I'm in the minority on DU on the filibuster.

33 Democrats signed a letter in 2017 basically begging McConnell to preserve the legislative filibuster. I won't pretend that the Dem pleas were a part of McConnell's thinking at the time, but the fact remains that the legislative filibuster is still with us.

For a country that elected Donald Trump just 5 years ago, and with him a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate (a larger majority in both Houses than the Dems enjoy today), the risk that The Great Catastrophe could happen again is just too great. I for one, would prefer to not see all the legislation implementing a Republican utopia pass because we got rid of a rule.

Just think of all the stuff the filibuster prevented:

The Flat Tax
Elimination of the IRS
The Wall
Elimination of legal abortion
Elimination of the EPA
Elimination of DACA
Elimination of the ACA
Republican immigration reform
Social Security Reform
Medicaid and Medicare Reform

The list is just too long to count, and the risk / reward ratio is just not high enough for me to support changing the filibuster. What could we pass in the next 6 months before everyone goes back and campaigns for their jobs again?

That's one, maybe two legislative lifts. Police Reform isn't even being talked about as a priority. Gun Control? Health Care? Judicial Reform? We can't even get our own caucus to agree on infrastructure or a $15 minimum wage!

Better to work for an FDR or Obama style super-majority than to eliminate the power of the minority, which we may very well be in less than 18 months.

[PSPS]

4. You're forgetting something

The existence of the filibuster made it possible for the GOP to vote in lockstep even when in the majority because they knew it wouldn't matter. Without the filibuster to shield them from the culpability of their anti-american votes, fewer of them would have voted they way they did.

[moose65]

12. You're on to something there

They were able to take cover and bash the Democrats because they knew the Dems would give them cover by filibustering. Without the filibuster, they would have had to think long and hard about those votes. It's kinda like after the Republicans took over the House in 2010 and passed all kinds of crazy shit to please their base, while knowing that the Senate and Obama would never let that crazy stuff become law.

[chowder66]

10. Republicans don't want the Democrats ideas and policies to pass because they are typically popular.

Republicans are all about stopping them because they know this.

The article explains that there are ways to get around the filibuster once something is enacted but they don't because of their popularity.
The filibuster is stopping us from implementing new big ideas/policies. We have to get them out there.

[moose65]

13. I'm not so sure about that

The filibuster did not save Obamacare repeal. It could have been repealed with 51 votes. Remember McCain's famous thumbs-down vote? He was the deciding vote on that one. They only had 49 votes in favor for repeal.

The flat tax deals with taxes and budgets, so it could be part of a reconciliation bill and not subject to a filibuster. Same thing for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those things affect the budget and are not subject to the filibuster.

When did they bring forth a bill to eliminate the IRS? To ban all abortions?

To me, elections have consequences, and the winner deserves the right to enact their policies, good or bad. That way, the people get to see exactly what they voted for.

[Casady1]

14. 60 votes to pass

51 votes to repeal. How is that a good idea?

[Calista241]

15. The problem is changing the rules with 50 votes.

Once one party changes the rules to pass shit with 50 votes, it's trivial for an opposing party to say, "fuck this 50 vote shit, you forced this on us, so we're changing the rules."

[lagomorph777]

18. McConnell will always set the rules to his own advantage when he is in power.

We shouldn't pretend that protecting the filibuster for McConnell's benefit now, will stop him from killing it for his benefit later.

[Calista241]

21. He had the opportunity to kill the filibuster, and was under a lot of pressure to do so.

That factually happened.

Now I suppose it's possible he changes his mind in the future, but that's a chance I'd take rather than risk everything on one or possibly two progressive initiatives passing this term.

We can't get 50 Senate Dem votes on a $15 minimum wage. What makes anyone here think they have the stomach to do the stuff we want them to do, like Police reform, Judicial reform, Health reform, etc. etc? Or that we'd be happy with whatever compromise they can get Manchin, Tester, or Sinema to vote for.

That's a lot of risk for a very questionable reward.

[lagomorph777]

22. One of the progressive initiatives is to save democracy.

Without that one, nothing else will matter. We would be doomed.

[brush]

17. Elections have consequences. If they did all that, chances are they'd be bounced out...

on their asses in the next election (see donald fucking trump in Nov. 2020). I say get rid of the filibuster. It's not in the Constitution and historically has been used by racist senators against human/civil rights legislation.

[dsc]

20. legal abortion is a dead letter for about 80 percent of states

with or without the filibuster. and if they did much of the rest they would be turfed out so fast your head would spin. BTW DACA isn't a law, the only reason it survived Trump was because of his ineptitude.

[PSPS]

5. She's on the pad

[chowder66]

6. This is exactly right.

Democrats need the people to feel the effects of their efforts during their term.
The more people feel those effects the more they will like the policies and want to stand by them.
Getting rid of the filibuster early on increases the chances of some of these policies to take hold before the next Presidential election and hopefully before the next midterms.

[lagomorph777]

19. +1000 We can sit on our thumbs waiting for "bipartisanship,"

...then finally enact things just before an election...which the GQP would win. Then, positive effects are felt AFTER the GQP takes power. Brilliant.

[budkin]

7. Remember how hard we worked to get her elected?

That was cool.

[TheBlackAdder]

9. Makes you wonder who she's consulting with to get those facts so blatantly wrong.

[Nevilledog]

11. Dollar store CliffsNotes on the Filibuster......ChrisNotes

[Carlitos Brigante]

16. "Well this is a surprise"....... said no one. nt