Obama may use 50-vote tactic on energy, healthcare

[kpete]

Source: The Hill

Obama may use 50-vote tactic on energy, healthcare
By Jim Snyder
Posted: 03/01/09 12:19 PM
President Obama’s budget director said the White House would consider using a Senate procedural tactic so that only 50 votes would be rquired to pass major healthcare and energy reforms.

Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the administration would prefer not to use the budget reconciliation process to push through its package.
But he added: "We have to keep everything on the table. We want to get these.... important things done this year." Orszag called healthcare in particular "the key to our fiscal future."

Orszag made the comments on ABC’s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

Because they can not be filibustered, budget reconciliations only require 50 votes to pass the Senate. Democrats hold strong majorities in Congress, but still come up short of the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to end debate, which makes it easier for Republicans to block legislation. House rules in comparison make it harder for the minority party to stop bills.

Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-considers-50-vote-strategy-on-energy-healthcare-2009-03-01.html

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

1. Good. nt

[bluestateguy]

2. DO IT! Bipartisanship is for sissies!

You only need 50 votes and a Joe Biden to break the tie. That allows you to ignore Mitch McConnel and leaves room for 8 DLCers to jump off the boat too.

[Pab Sungenis]

31. You only need 50 votes, period.

Right now, there are only 99 Senators. 50 is a majority.

Wouldn't it be great if the Republicans keeping Franken out bit them on the ass because it lowered the threshold for "majority?"

[Wabbajack_]

41. It doesn't matter with VP it would be a majority even if it was 50/50

[No Elephants]

64. Isn't there a Senate rule requiring 60 votes in order to increase the budget deficit?

[Igel]

67. The article has glitches.

Here's one:

"Because they can not be filibustered, budget reconciliations only require 50 votes to pass the Senate. Democrats hold strong majorities in Congress, but still come up short of the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to end debate, which makes it easier for Republicans to block legislation. House rules in comparison make it harder for the minority party to stop bills."

Reconciliation, because they cannot be filibustered, requires 60 votes. "50" is a typo, but a crucial one.

A 50-vote strategy works just fine, as long as there are no filibusters *and* the legislation doesn't fall under reconciliation rules. Sometimes the chair can decide that himself; the administration never decides that, since, well, at least in other times we like to acknowledge separation of powers. At least when it suits our striving for power, or striving for a reduction in the opposition's power.

However, going with a 50-vote strategy would put the onus on republicans: They must actively filibuster a bill, instead of simply not voting for the bill. All things being equal there should be no difference, since the substance is the same regardless; but if you live in PR-land, where form matters at least no less than substance, there's a huge difference between them.

[No Elephants]

71. Again, isn't there a rule requiring 60 votes to increase the deficit? I don't think 60 is a typo. I

think the author is distinguishing the cases where 60 votes are required, like the stimulus package, from the cases where 50 votes will do.

[Nitrogenica]

3. Rush is the GOP. He is not bipartisan.

[mod mom]

58. and they have vociferously stated they want failure-so f-them!

[gristy]

4. I do wish Obama would force them to filibuster at some point.

I am baffled how this administration seems to be so terrified of a filibuster.

[MrsBrady]

7. thank you

i say let them filibuster, let them read the freaking phone book in 8 hour shifts for a week.
let them look like a** holes...
cuz they don't even have the moral courage to probably even do that in the first place,
because they really don't give a crap to begin with, IMO

[Plucketeer]

16. I agree

Let the party of NO show it's futile and pitiful self! The ONLY tool left in their bag is tax cuts. A tool WELL-PROVEN to have no effect at all. Friggin' shallow-minded jerks! :grr:

[bjobotts]

52. Wrong! They don't have to even talk during a filibuster. Just say...

You don't have a majority when the vote to end debate comes up. They only have to have one person there to say it. If the c-span cameras were on all you'd hear is muzak playing and that one republican reading his favorite novel. And any time a dem tried to end the filibuster they would just say "do you have a majority of 60 votes to end filibuster...if not then filibuster continues." That's the rules. In the past when Strum Thug-burg stood up and read from the phone book etc...he didn't have to...it was just theater dramatics on his part...completely unnecessary to continue the filibuster.

It took 1.5yrs for Reid to finally inform the outraged public how the filibuster actually works. They don't have to talk at all...just sit there in silence.

Time to end the filibuster rule huh.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

57. BUT...Reid can demand a traditional(spoken) filibuster.

They don't have to talk but you can make them talk.

Procedural filibuster
In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster where no floor speech and no quorum is required may therefore be more powerful than an actual filibuster that would require attendance by a quorum of Senators as well as the physical presence of the Senators speaking.

Previously, the filibustering senator(s) could delay voting only by making an endless speech. Currently, they need only indicate that they are filibustering, thereby preventing the Senate from moving on to other business until the motion is withdrawn or enough votes are gathered for cloture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

Did Reid inform the outraged public of that for 1.5 years?

[No Elephants]

65. As long as Dems are in the majority for as long as the country lasts, no problem ending it. Maybe,

though, it's time for the Democrats to use the "nuclear option" threat the same way the Pubs used it when the Pubs were in the majority--to get a compromise from the Dems.

[Igel]

68. Different kind of measure.

I have no problem with the "nuclear option" for appointments; there's no great reason not to limit debate after a reasonable time.

With substantive measures I think the nuclear option is a disgrace to whoever employs it, and a discounting of the very idea of valuing debate and dialog. It's saying, "I have power, and that makes me always right and superior, and if you don't like it screw you." Might makes right, in a mostly non-violent setting.

Some revel in the sensation of power and in humiliating others, I never have, and generally consider those who do so to be at least a tad mentally ill.

[No Elephants]

70. Um, inasmuch as Democrat's being in the majority for as long as the nation exists is unlikely

(desirable, but unlikely), obviously, I was not advocating the nuclear option. It is just about the only "club" the minority party has, so I want it there for when Dems are the minority.

However, the change from 60 to 51 (usually) would not be an indicium of insanity, not even a tad. It is only a Senate Rule, not a Constitutional mandate. Moreover, we are not necessarily talking about limiting the time discussion. Maybe we're talking about the amount of time some Senator can read his or her favorite novel on the taxpayers' dime.

If power wielded in an especially ugly way suggests insanity to you, though, you were no doubt itching to institutionalize all Republicans in Congress 2000 to 2006.

How about minority "power" wielded in an ugly way, as the Pubs have been doing?

[tclambert]

54. They're picking their spot for it.

If you force them to physically do a filibuster, you want to make it look as bad for the R's as possible. So you reach out time after time, and take the hand slapped away. You pass a few things with compromise that urgency demands. Then on something widely popular with the voting public, but not as urgent, you stand firm and dare them to filibuster. If they do, they lose in the public's mind. If they chicken out of the actual filibuster, you analyze why and find out who will break party ranks and put country first.

[Pirate Smile]

8. The Administration or the Senate Democratic Leadership?

[stillcool]

15. what have you read...

about the administration terrified of a filibuster?

[marshall]

38. What does Obama have to do with procedures in the Senate?

I thought separation of powers meant the president didn't call the shots in the Senate. I understand that he can council with the senators, but isn't it Reid's decision as to what procedures are followed?

[izquierdista]

51. That would be the problem

It's Reid's decision. You hit (shhh, quiet Harry, I was using the word 'hit' in the figurative sense) the nail on the head.

[marshall]

59. This is just like the media saying Obama wrote the stimulus bill

When in actuality it was written this summer. They are feeding into Byrd's hysteria.

[annabanana]

39. Right-o.. SHOW them blocking something that the vast majority

of Americans want & need. . See how well that works for them. .

[elocs]

44. The Myth of the Filibuster:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

Dems can't make Republicans talk all night:

----------snip----------

Reid has heard the calls. But his answer will surely disappoint: Sorry. It can't happen.

Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

Much to our disappointment, this is not "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

[katusha]

46. this is very enlightening

thanks for posting the info on this.

[elocs]

47. I saw it here on DU recently, but I never have luck in searching here,

but it turned up on Google. It was news to me, too, and not what we typically think of the filibuster as being. Maybe Reid does know something that we don't.

[katusha]

49. let's hope he does n/t

[ThoughtCriminal]

48. They can change the rules too

Reid doesn't seem to want to consider that. Remember when the Republicans talked about the "Nuclear Option"? Nor do the Senate Democrats want to talk about why, if it is so easy for the minority to block legislation, they did not use these methods to stop some of the most disastrous bills passed in the nation's history.

[monmouth]

5. I wish we could get Franken seated...Geez....n/t

[inna]

12. how come he is not seated yet?? anyone know? nt

[OswegoAtheist]

17. Obstinance

Minnesota election rules don't allow a Senator to be seated if there's a challenge to their election. Since Coleman lost by only a few hundred votes, he's holding up Franken's seating, just to be a dickhole.

Oswego "and George W. Bush must be tried for war crimes" Atheist

[Jackpine Radical]

22. Obstinacy?

Coleman, backed with lots of outside money, is clinging to his battle, merely to deny Obama one more vote for as long as possible. I got an email solicitation from the Republican Lawyers* Association trying to get me to pour some money into their coffers.

*Disclaimer: I am neither a Republican nor a lawyer.

[tclambert]

55. The Republicans have held fundraisers to build a legal warchest for Coleman so he can delay

and delay and delay. Their strategy isn't even winning anymore. It is just to tie up the election decision in the courts as long as possible. Franken would be the 59th Democratic Senator, putting the Dems just one vote short of the filibuster-breaking 60. The Republicans would rather deprive Minnesota of half its Senate representation than let Franken take his seat.

[pleah]

6. I say, go for it!

K&R

[we can do it]

9. Now We're Talkin - Let's Get This Stuff Done

[DeepBlueC]

10. Good. I don't care what the Republicans think

In fact I have seen little evidence recently that they do so at all.

[rosesaylavee]

11. Good to know they have a few options.

How much better this is than the last 12 years. Sigh.

[Hope And Change]

13. This caught my eye...

"Because they can not be filibustered, budget reconciliations only require 50 votes to pass the Senate."

[Towlie]

27. Question: Why 50 and not 51? If Al Franken is seated, will bills then require 51 votes to pass?

Help me out here.

[DeepBlueC]

33. we haz a vice-president to break ties

[Towlie]

42. Of course! Thanks.

[Lost-in-FL]

14. YEAH!!!!

I was wondering when we would go "nuclear" ala Bill Frist.

[creeksneakers2]

18. Republicans will obstruct every chance they get

Its best to give them as few chances as possible.

[Chulanowa]

20. Their obstruction hurts them and helps us.

Especially when brought to bear against things their constituents want.

Let them obstruct. let them filibuster. I'm sick of the Democrats backing down because the Republicans MIGHT filibuster. If these fucks want to spend days reading sections of War and peace, then let them. Bring some needed culture to Congress.

[scytherius]

19. Well I would assume so

I guess he wonldn't if he know he had the cloture votes, but otherwise it's a no brainer.

[RBInMaine]

21. SCREW the R's. They are FASCISTS, NOT "conservatives". You CAN'T negotiate with them.

[GeorgeGist]

23. Politicians play games ...

so that the game never ends.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

24. I hope it doesn't come to that.

America doesn't need another chief executive who's willing to steamroll over the legislative branch whenever they disagree with him.

[Bette Noir]

50. How is a solid majority "steamrolling" over the legislative branch?

It's a minority holding us up. The Constitution only requires a simple majority for the passage of a bill; the 60-vote super-majority requirement is a recent invention.

Where are the strict constructionists when you need them?

[Igel]

69. Strict constructionists have nothing to say on the matter.

The Senate imposes its own rules as far as this is concerned; the Constitution authorizes it to do so.

The 60-vote super-majority for cloture is a recent invention. It used to be a much higher requirement, 70, IIRC (then transitioning down to 67 before dropping to 60, IIRC). If you want to abide by early American practices, 60 votes would have been considered as infringing on the minority's voice.

The reconciliation process dates to the 1970s--fairly recent, to be sure--and is a way of simplifying things and preserving rights.

Remember: All rights protect not the majority from itself, but a minority from the majority. We may say we like majority rule, but in practice we only like it when we're a majority and something's stopping us from doing what we want. I personally loathe majoritarianism. In the student government organization I chaired for more than a year I personally saw more than one of my measures go down to defeat via filibuster and the more insidious denial of quorum, and while I disliked having my measures fail, I usually found solace in the overall fairness of the gmae and a belief that the process should serve everybody's interests and not just mine or the causes I prefer.

[Abq_Sarah]

72. The Senate makes their own

Rules and it would be nice if they adhered to them or changed them. I do understand the desire to steamroll the opposition but would we be so happy about it if the shoe were on the other foot?

[Optical.Catalyst]

53. We are not 'steamrolling the legislative branch'. We are steamrolling the Republicans

The Republican party will soon cease to exist as a viable political entity. We need to finish them off now, and let the political process produce a new political party to replace them.

Pacifying the Republicans only prolongs everyone's misery and is dangerous in these unstable times. The obstruction of legislation by the Republicans (almost entirely for political purposes) could result in the worsening of our economic crisis, could show weakness to our adversaries around the world, and mortally wound the United States as a world power.

Now is the time for quick, firm action to solve our problems, not to play political games with Republicans that would harm this country.

Now is the time to utterly crush the Republicans.

[blondeatlast]

63. He isn't steamrolling anyone--he's playing politics. GOOD politics.

He's making the RRR put up of shut up on an issue that most voters are strongly in favor of.

[high density]

25. Up or down vote

The Republics loved this mantra a few years ago.

[No Elephants]

66. Because they are morans. "An up or down vote" is a moran's phrase. The correct term is "a vote."

[chollybocker]

26. Lead, Obama, Lead.

That's why we all voted for you.

[Hekate]

28. "I am an eternal optimist, but I am not a sap," said Obama of his bipartisanship efforts...

Y E S !!!

Hekate

[seasat]

29. That's what the Repubs used to pass their tax cuts for the rich.

The Repubs used the exact same tactic. That's why they were temporary instead of permanent. To use that rule, it has to be revenue neutral or cause a reduction in the deficit over a 5 year period. They made them phase out so that they could project no impact on the deficit in 5 years. I was hoping they would have used it for the stimulus package and pushed through a larger more effective stimulus.

[Hawkeye-X]

30. Consider invoking the nuclear option, Reid.....

At this time of the national emergency - we need to stop ALL Repuke crap and let them sit in a corner for a few months while we fix their messes...

It CAN be revoked when things settle down, and then you can re-write the Senate rules that the Republicans can't use it against us.

Hawkeye-X

[Idealism]

32. The nuclear option will work.

[MasonJar]

34. This Minnesota law is limiting their representation. If Coleman ends up winning

this freakish battle, Franken should keep him in court for 6 years. Reid says he will seat Franken April 1, if th case is not complete4d by then.

[Mr. Sparkle]

35. WOO HOO ! The democrats are using their brains and being politically smart.

I need to sit down before I faint.:)

[trthnd4jstc]

36. He Better. I hope to g-d that the Pres. repairs our nation. n/t

[rocktivity]

37. Well, if the 50-VOTE strategy can work as well as the 50-STATE strategy

I say, bring it on!

:headbang:
rocknation

[MrMickeysMom]

40. Let's drive these motherfuckers right out of the hill

Sick and tired of the past. Aren't you?

[AndyTiedye]

43. I RECOMMEND that He KICK Their Asses In This Fashion

:kick:

[deacon]

45. Do it! n/t

[blondeatlast]

56. YES! I find myself in the uncomfortable position possibly losing group coverage or staying in a

very uncomfortable personal situation.

Thousands of others are in the same predicament--please, President Obama (never get tired of that!), help us out!

[Warren Stupidity]

60. Instant Karma Baby

What goes around comes around. I can hear the fat boy squealing right now about unfairness of it all.

[Odin2005]

61. Reminds me of when FDR shifted to the Left after the business community bit his hand..

[valerief]

62. He damn well better. I'm tired of doing the digging of my own grave. nt