If the Senate only needed 50 votes (simple majority)...

[Dawgs]

A health care reform bill would have passed with a "strong" public option (House bill at least).

The American Clean Energy and Security Act would have passed... last year.

Glass Steagall and "The Volcker Rule" would have been included in the financial reform bill.

...and many other progressive wish list items would have not been compromised away.

I'm not pointing this out to show the problems with the Senate. We all know about the filibuster. It's to show that Democrats have been working hard for liberals. And, that it's only a small minority in the Senate that have stopped real progress.

We are close folks. Doing something about the filibuster or electing more progressives is the only thing stopping us.

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. And Bush's tax cuts would have permanant

Just remember that some day down the road Republicans will control Congress again.

[Dawgs]

2. I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying that Bush's tax cuts would have been eliminated?

If not, what do you mean?

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. When they were originally passed, there were not enough votes to

overcome a filibuster. So the Republicans passed them as a budget item, which caused them to only last for a few years. If they had only needed 51 votes to pass, they would not be expiring. It would require 51 Democrats to actually vote for a tax increase, which is a lot harder than getting the Senate to do nothing.

[Dawgs]

11. So what? The Dems could do so much to fix everything else, the tax cuts for rich wouldn't matter.

The point is that the Democrats wouldn't have had to compromise much at all, knowing that they most likely had the votes for everything. It would have been a lot easier to get one or two Democrats to change their votes, than the one or two Republicans they needed for other things.

[paulk]

15. and then when Democrats took control again they would make

them "umpermanent"...

And if we can't get 51 Democrats to vote for a tax increase with all the evidence that Bush's tax cuts did not have the effect they were advertised to have - well then I guess the voters would need to put some different Democrats in office.

It's clear that the filibuster rule is being abused to the point where the Senate is no longer a workable legislative body - something needs to be done.

[Amimnoch]

6. Among other things. Thoughts of 01 to 06, especially post 9/11 with no filibuster is terrifying.

Remember, the filibuster stopped the nomination of 6 judges, not the least of which was Harriet Miers.

Thinking of the kind of legislation the conservatives could have pushed through from 2001 to 2006, especially in the first couple of years post 9/11... it's terrifying to think of what kind of laws would be passed now if they could have with just the simple majority.

I'm sorry, but unless there's also a way to positively prevent the thugs from ever regaining both houses of congress and the presidency ever again, I'm with keeping the filibuster in the rules... it's just too much to risk.

Sure being able to be free to push our issues through, and being able to laugh at the "party of no" would be great, but I fear what will happen when they have their next go around at it.

[NorthCarolina]

4. Too many DLC Dems in the Senate to have passed a PO even at 50 votes.

There will be no real progress until the DLC New Dem numbers are reduced.

[SunsetDreams]

7. How many DLC members are there?

I'm curious, because I really don't know.

Is there a list?

[NorthCarolina]

17. The list is no longer published by the DLC, but here's a list for the 109th Congress

There may be a more current list available someplace, but I was unable to locate it quickly.


The following members of the 109th Congress are also members of the DLC:

Brian Baird, U.S. Representative, WA
Max Baucus, U.S. Senator, MT
Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN
Melissa Bean, United States Representative, IL
Shelley Berkley, U.S. Representative, NV
Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator, WA
Lois Capps, U.S. Representative, CA
Russ Carnahan, U.S. Representative, MO
Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE
Ed Case, U.S. Representative, HI
Ben Chandler, U.S. Representative, KY
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY
Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator, ND
Joseph Crowley, U.S. Representative, NY
Jim Davis, U.S. Representative, FL
Artur Davis, U.S. Representative, AL
Susan Davis, U.S. Representative, CA
Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator, CT
Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator, ND
Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Representative, IL
Eliot Engel, U.S. Representative, NY
Bob Etheridge, U.S. Representative, NC
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA
Harold Ford, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN
Charlie Gonzalez, United States Representative, TX
Jane Harman, U.S. Representative, CA
Stephanie Herseth, U.S. Representative, SD
Rush Holt, U.S. Representative, NJ
Darlene Hooley, U.S. Representative, OR
Jay Inslee, U.S. Representative, WA
Steve Israel, U.S. Representative, NY
Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator, SD
John Kerry, U.S. Senator, MA
Ron Kind, U.S. Representative, WI
Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator, WI
Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA
Rick Larsen, U.S. Representative, WA
John Larson, U.S. Representative, CT
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT
Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR
Carolyn McCarthy, U.S. Representative, NY
Mike McIntyre, U.S. Representative, NC
Gregory Meeks, U.S. Representative, NY
Charlie Melancon, United States Representative, LA
Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative, CA
Jim Moran, U.S. Representative, VA
Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL
Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE
David Price, U.S. Representative, NC
Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR
Loretta Sanchez, U.S. Representative, CA
Adam B. Schiff, U.S. Representative, CA
Allyson Schwartz, U.S. Representative, PA
David Scott, U.S. Representative, GA
Adam Smith, U.S. Representative, WA
Vic Snyder, United States Representative, AR
Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator, MI
Ellen Tauscher, U.S. Representative, CA
Tom Udall, U.S. Representative, NM
David Wu, U.S. Representative, OR

And of course, there is always this source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x3027

[Dawgs]

20. Not quite. They had about 55 when it was first being debated.

Nelson, Lincoln, Lieberman, and one or two others were the only to say no.

[NorthCarolina]

21. Just for show

Nelson, Lieberman and Lincoln were the front, making it safe for the others to "appear" to support while knowing full well that it was a safe position since the PO wasn't going anywhere. How many DLC New Dems do you recall that were publicly attempting to rally support for a PO? None....just simple politics. Take a popular position you are against as long as you are sure that your personal desire will prevail.

[Dawgs]

22. Ah, so you have know proof.

Got it.

[NorthCarolina]

24. Not

"know proof", just "common sense".

[ProSense]

5. The Volcker Rule is in the financial bill

but I agree with your point.

[brentspeak]

10. Wrong (on purpose) yet again. The Volcker Rule is not in the financial bill

until the year 2022:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/volcker-rule-may-give-goldman-sachs-citigroup-until-2022-to-curb-funds.html

Volcker Rule May Give Goldman, Citigroup Until 2022 to Comply

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc. are among U.S. banks that may have as long as a dozen years to cut stakes in in-house hedge funds and private- equity units under a regulatory revamp agreed to last week.

Rules curbing banks’ investments in their own funds would take effect 15 months to two years after a law is passed, according to the bill. Banks would have two years to comply, with the potential for three one-year extensions after that. They could seek another five years for “illiquid” funds such as private equity or real estate, said Lawrence Kaplan, an attorney at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP in Washington.

Giving banks until 2022 to fully implement the so-called Volcker rule is an accommodation for Wall Street in what President Barack Obama called the toughest financial reforms since the 1930s. The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 forced commercial banks such as what is now JPMorgan Chase & Co. to shed their investment-banking units in less than two years.

[SunsetDreams]

8. K&R

[MadBadger]

9. I just want to see filibuster reform, not it done away with. 55 votes seems fair

[Dawgs]

12. Agree. My point was to show that we were close on everything we wanted.

Not that I want to get rid of the filibuster.

55 votes is a good idea. I also like the idea of limiting the # of times it could be used.

[Arkana]

14. Do it in increments--first 60 votes, then 56 or 57, then 53 or 54, then it becomes unusable.

[Arkana]

13. We'd have gotten the PO. we'd have gotten a much better finreg bill,

we'd be getting climate change, and we probably would get Tier V UI extensions.

[Amimnoch]

16. Okay, lets say we did get all of those things, and more... What things do you

think the Repubs would push through when the political tides turn again? Can you imagine what they would have pushed through if all that was needed was a majority vote in the Senate after 9/11, when they last had both houses of congress and the presidency?? With Bush/Cheney as the ring leaders? I don't doubt for a SECOND that the filibuster was the only thing keeping us from going under full martial law. I love the idea of a full, comprehensive health care package, end of DADT, we'd get the finreg bill, heck it would have be wonderful to see real social progress in this country. Just remember one of the key differences between us and them.. with us, we'd use the looser restrictions to promote social welfare for the country. They'd use it silence us, declare us criminals, and traitors, and destroy personal freedoms, while finally realising their dream of turning us into a true Corporate Republic.. I also wouldn't put it past them to find a way to eliminate the Democratic Party all together.

No, unless you can somehow ensure that the Rethugs will never get both houses of Congress and the Presidency again, I hope with all my heart that the filibuster and cloture rules are not removed.

[TheKentuckian]

18. It would be bumpy and dicey at first but might lead to a higher level of sanity

and foster a more cooperative environment over time because of much more inherent fear of the results of an election swing.

I'm over a fear based mode of operation. If the Republicans are truly as dangerous as you might suggest then they should be dealt with more appropriately and we should go straight to the mattresses and treat this as war instead of some kind of game.

[Dawgs]

19. +1. If the Republicans do the things that the author suggests, it will be the end of Republicans.

The tide is already turning toward Democrats. It might take another 10-20 years, but the Dems are looking good for the future. The tea party nut jobs will ensure this for us.

Those under 50 are pro-gay rights, pro-minority, and pro-climate change.

[okieinpain]

23. wouldn't 51 be a simple majority.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. Biden tie breaker. (nt)

[ProgressOnTheMove]

26. I recall Randi saying rules can only change at the start of a new Congress.