Filibuster Reform Is Upon Us

[Direckshun]

dun dun DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Not really.

Harry Reid is seeking two reforms: kill the filibuster of the motion to proceed, and turn the non-speaking filibuster back into the speaking filibuster.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...0ab3_blog.html

Full speed ahead on filibuster reform?
By Greg Sargent
Posted at 05:04 PM ET, 11/26/2012

On the Senate floor today, Harry Reid offered the clearest confirmation yet that he will move forward with filibuster reform at the start of the new Congress. He confirmed he is proposing to “do away with filibusters on the motion to proceed,” which was already known. He added that under proposed reforms, Senators who want to filibuster will have to “stand up and talk about it.” That means Reid supports the “talking filibuster,” the proposal to force filibustering out into the open — on the theory that this will make it politically more difficult.

There’s some debate over whether the latter proposal is likely to be effective. Jonathan Bernstein has argued that it’s absurd to imagine that Republicans would balk at publicly holding the floor.

That aside, now that there will be a massive spin war over the meaning of reform — Mitch McConnell railed today that Dems are planning a “naked power grab” — it’s worth reiterating that there is a set of actual facts about GOP filibustering and the Dem response to it that shouldn’t get lost in all the false equivalence BS we’re certain to hear:

1) The extent of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. This chart shows that cloture motions (a rough measure of filibustering) suddenly spiked during the Obama years. Yes, they also spiked in 2007-2008, but according to Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein, the vast majority of those filibusters were mounted by Republicans, presumably to block legislation designed to embarrass George W. Bush. (Indeed, the motions to end filibusters during that period were filed mostly by Dems.)

2) The nature of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. Ornstein says this is true in two ways: First, in the extensive blockading of what used to be considered routine Senate business. And second, much of the filibustering is part of a concerted party strategy. “You’re not just looking at filibusters done by rogue senators or factions, like southern Democrats in the 1950s,” says Ornstein. “It’s the first time we’ve had a wide range of filibustering by a whole party.”

3) Filibuster reform would not do away with the minority’s ability to filibuster. The “talking filibuster” reform and the nixing of the filibuster on the motion to proceed would only make it harder to use procedural tactics, under cover of darkness, for the explicit purpose of stalling the Upper Chamber’s business. The minority would still be able to block the will of a simple majority on the vote to end debate. These are not very meaningful restrictions on the “rights” of the minority.

At any rate, now that Reid has made such a vocal push, it’s hard to imagine that Dems won’t move forward on day one of the new session to change the rules with a simple majority vote. Looks like it’s on.

***************************************

UPDATE: It’s also possible that unilateral action on the rules by Democrats to change the filibuster may not happen, if Dems and Republicans reach a deal. As Ornstein emails me:

In 1975, we had the threat of one party action to change the rule, and it led to a bipartisan compromise. That could happen this time, despite the rhetoric — a bipartisan move to eliminate filibusters on the motion to proceed, a few more changes, and in return, a guarantee for the minority on at least some amendments on bills.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by whoman69

You've been fed a line of crap. What Republicans want is for Obama to continue to bargain against himself. He is the only one offering compromise and Republicans say its not enough. Then they expect another offer.

Republicans want entitlements in the debate but won't say what they are. That way they can say Obama cut social security and medicare. I have never seen such a bunch of spineless anti-patriots in my life.

The biggest spineless anti-patriot I've witnessed in my life is Obama.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Literature

Don't ****ing tell me that cuts weren't on the table from Obama. Romney never detailed what deductions he would look to end. Does that mean he never was going to end some deductions? Don't lie to us and say that Obama hasn't offered cuts. There was $400 billion worth of cuts in the Geitner proposal.

It's time to stop campaigning and start governing. Now can you describe these cuts or not? Are they upfront, specific cuts or are they down-the-road, aspirational cuts with no guarantees?

[FD]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It's time to stop campaigning and start governing. Now can you describe these cuts or not? Are they upfront, specific cuts or are they down-the-road, aspirational cuts with no guarantees?

Someone has put his Medicare/Medicaid cuts together into one graph, for your perusal. They add up to $360-400 billion.

I havent really looked through this yet.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-deficit-deal/

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by FD

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-deficit-deal/

Interesting.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

The biggest spineless anti-patriot I've witnessed in my life is Obama.

You've just posted the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by whoman69

You've just posted the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Absolutely. No argument there. My post is based on yours.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You're clueless.

Get out of the bubble. Tell me where I'm wrong. Is Social Security not paid for? Medicare is not in trouble because of prescription drugs which Bush added? The US is not spending 40% of the world defense budget? If you don't believe tons of money can't be cut out of wasteful defense practices then you're just burying your head up the ass of defense contractors.

Stop pulling the argument to irrelevant tangents like you always do. If we really want to get serious about Medicare its not by cutting back services, its by working on skyrocketing medical costs. That is not something that can be solved in the budgeting process.

[JonesCrusher]

Originally Posted by FD

Someone has put his Medicare/Medicaid cuts together into one graph, for your perusal. They add up to $360-400 billion.

I havent really looked through this yet.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-deficit-deal/

Many similar cuts are also taking effect due to Obamacare. Are these in addition to those or is this just some creative math?

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by whoman69

Get out of the bubble. Tell me where I'm wrong. Is Social Security not paid for?

What do you mean paid for? Available benefits start to get scaled back around 2030.

[FD]

Originally Posted by JonesCrusher

Many similar cuts are also taking effect due to Obamacare. Are these in addition to those or is this just some creative math?

These would be on top of Obamacare's cuts.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by whoman69

Get out of the bubble. Tell me where I'm wrong. Is Social Security not paid for?

No, it's not as a matter of fact.

Originally Posted by whoman69

Medicare is not in trouble because of prescription drugs which Bush added?

Medicare is in financial trouble, period. You're right later in this post that the problem is rising health care costs. You're wrong here to suggest that the problem is limited to the prescription drug program.

Originally Posted by whoman69

The US is not spending 40% of the world defense budget? If you don't believe tons of money can't be cut out of wasteful defense practices then you're just burying your head up the ass of defense contractors.

I don't know what the right percentage is and I don't care because it's irrelevant. I don't know what a "ton" of money is but the tone of your statement tells me that you're way off on the amount of waste that can be cut from defense. In any event, the defense budget isn't a source of our fiscal problems and it's foolish to use the defense budget like a piggy bank so you can avoid dealing with entitlements that actually are the source of the problem.

Originally Posted by whoman69

Stop pulling the argument to irrelevant tangents like you always do. If we really want to get serious about Medicare its not by cutting back services, its by working on skyrocketing medical costs. That is not something that can be solved in the budgeting process.

This is about the only thing you got right. It's a shame that democrats decided to ignore this problem and force a medical reform on the country that pursued universal coverage, wasteful levels of preventive care, and ubiquitous contraception instead. When is the President going to get serious about this?

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by patteeu

No, it's not as a matter of fact.

Medicare is in financial trouble, period. You're right later in this post that the problem is rising health care costs. You're wrong here to suggest that the problem is limited to the prescription drug program.

I don't know what the right percentage is and I don't care because it's irrelevant. I don't know what a "ton" of money is but the tone of your statement tells me that you're way off on the amount of waste that can be cut from defense. In any event, the defense budget isn't a source of our fiscal problems and it's foolish to use the defense budget like a piggy bank so you can avoid dealing with entitlements that actually are the source of the problem.

This is about the only thing you got right. It's a shame that democrats decided to ignore this problem and force a medical reform on the country that pursued universal coverage, wasteful levels of preventive care, and ubiquitous contraception instead. When is the President going to get serious about this?

Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus. That surplus is expect to last another 20 years. Of course we could extend that by raising the maximum money that is taxed but Republicans won't go for hurting the "job creators".

In addition to waste, the Defense department is still being funded to fight a Cold War that no longer exists. We can no longer afford the corporate welfare to fund the military industrial complex.

Sen. Coburn (R-OK) states that excessive military overhead is $37 billion over 10 years. He also cites $9 in savings by closing PXs which I would favor with the exception of overseas bases. He also wants to close on base military schools, which I would have to worry about local schools being able to absorb without taxes from those on the base. That would also be of limited savings, only $10.7 million over a decade.

Its ironic that you state using defense budget to piggy bank entitlements when Congress has been doing just the opposite for years. We cannot afford to spend $631 billion every year on defense.

Preventative care will save money in the long term. The current model is one of the reasons healthcare is so high.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by whoman69

Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus. That surplus is expect to last another 20 years. Of course we could extend that by raising the maximum money that is taxed but Republicans won't go for hurting the "job creators".

Like I said, SS is not paid for. We should stop waiting for crises to fix these things.

Originally Posted by whoman69

In addition to waste, the Defense department is still being funded to fight a Cold War that no longer exists. We can no longer afford the corporate welfare to fund the military industrial complex.

Sen. Coburn (R-OK) states that excessive military overhead is $37 billion over 10 years. He also cites $9 in savings by closing PXs which I would favor with the exception of overseas bases. He also wants to close on base military schools, which I would have to worry about local schools being able to absorb without taxes from those on the base. That would also be of limited savings, only $10.7 million over a decade.

We should, and we have been, constantly reviewing our defense requirements and aligning our defense budget to meet future threats rather than those of yesteryear. Similarly, we should, and we do, continually look for ways to make our defense spending more efficient. None of that means that we can slash our defense spending just because we've made bad decisions to live beyond our means on the domestic and entitlement sides of the budget.

The potential savings that you cite above may well be worthwhile. But you should recognize that you're talking about peanuts compared to the overall defense budget. You're talking about savings of less than $5 billion per year (which is less than 1% of the budget, using your $631 billion number mentioned below). By comparison, the sequestration cuts would be something like 11% of the budget.

Originally Posted by whoman69

Its ironic that you state using defense budget to piggy bank entitlements when Congress has been doing just the opposite for years. We cannot afford to spend $631 billion every year on defense.

No, Congress hasn't been doing the opposite. What Congress has been doing is over-spending on discretionary programs and over-promising on entitlement programs. It's time to face up to our addiction and confront it head on instead of finding another way to enable it just a little longer. Gutting defense to get another fix will only postpone the date we have with our fiscal destiny. By far the biggest fiscal problem we face are spiraling healthcare costs and their impact on entitlements. It's long past time to get serious about this and quit scapegoating our defense budget.

Originally Posted by whoman69

Preventative care will save money in the long term. The current model is one of the reasons healthcare is so high.

Preventative care doesn't always lead to savings. If you spend $10/per person to prevent a malady that costs $500 to treat, it seems like prevention is a no-brainer. And that's how politicians will describe their proposal to prevent Disease X. But if the malady only occurs in 1 out of every 100 people, it would cost you $1000 to prevent it compared to $500 to treat it. That concept isn't well understood. There are too many people who blindly accept the idea that preventative care is always cheaper than the alternative. You seem to be one of them.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Like I said, SS is not paid for. We should stop waiting for crises to fix these things.

SS is set to remain 100% solvent and pay out every cent for at least the next 20 years.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

SS is set to remain 100% solvent and pay out every cent for at least the next 20 years.

Right, it's scheduled to run out of money. If your personal annuity was scheduled to run out of money in 20 years even if you live another 50, would you find it satisfactory? I know I wouldn't.