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.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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.

You just need to qualify when you say it's not paid for.

It's not paid for in 2035.

Until then, and possibly a little past then, it's paid for.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You just need to qualify when you say it's not paid for.

It's not paid for in 2035.

Until then, and possibly a little past then, it's paid for.

It's not paid for *now*, until it's perpetually solvent given our best assumptions about demographic changes and economic growth. It's silly to pretend that "SS is paid for" would be an accurate statement if it was going to run out of money next year. It's only marginally less silly to pretend that that phrase is accurate when the insolvency point is 20 years out.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It's not paid for *now*, until it's perpetually solvent given our best assumptions about demographic changes and economic growth. It's silly to pretend that "SS is paid for" would be an accurate statement if it was going to run out of money next year. It's only marginally less silly to pretend that that phrase is accurate when the insolvency point is 20 years out.

So you're telling me my 100 year mortgage isn't paid for if I die before then?

Shit.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It's not paid for *now*

Yes, it is. It's paid for, for at least 20 years, if not longer.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Yes, it is. It's paid for, for at least 20 years, if not longer.

Why not make it perpetually solvent so we don't have to worry about it?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Why not make it perpetually solvent so we don't have to worry about it?

I agree.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Yes, it is. It's paid for, for at least 20 years, if not longer.

No, it's underfunded now because, based on our best estimates of demographic changes and economic factors, it goes broke in 20 years.

[donkhater]

It's misleading to state that SS has a $2.7 trillion surplus. There is no fund that benefits are extracted from. The 'surplus' is the projected revenue that will be collected before it goes in the red. Government already spent the SS fund. Current benefits are paid out with current tax dollars, it's only shading accounting that allows politicians to say with a straight face that SS doesn't contribute to the debt.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You just need to qualify when you say it's not paid for.

It's not paid for in 2035.

Until then, and possibly a little past then, it's paid for.

2035 is when it projected that there will be less than 1 worker for every 1 person collecting SS benefits. At that point, it will be enter into the red.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

No, it's underfunded now.

Your definition of "now" means three decades into the future.

That's the assault on language you have to perform for your points to make sense.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by donkhater

It's misleading to state that SS has a $2.7 trillion surplus. There is no fund that benefits are extracted from. The 'surplus' is the projected revenue that will be collected before it goes in the red. Government already spent the SS fund. Current benefits are paid out with current tax dollars, it's only shading accounting that allows politicians to say with a straight face that SS doesn't contribute to the debt.

Social security does not contribute to the debt.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Social security does not contribute to the debt.

You're right. It contributes to the deficit. You know the difference, right?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by donkhater

You're right. It contributes to the deficit. You know the difference, right?

Do you have anything you can link to to support that claim?

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Do you have anything you can link to to support that claim?

Sure, knock yourself out

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...o_deficit.html

The American public should be outraged that our public officials ran a Ponzi Scheme on us for years. Alas, no one seems to care. Just raise taxes on those evil rich people!

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Your definition of "now" means three decades into the future.

That's the assault on language you have to perform for your points to make sense.

No, when I say "now", I mean today.