Liberals in America are mad because they have had a difficult time implementing an unpopular far left agenda, especially with regard to Obamacare. One of the results of this rage is for liberals to attack one of the rules in the Senate that protects unlimited debate and amendment – the Filibuster Rule.
Rule 22 of the Senate’s rules governs the conduct of a filibuster and requires that a “Cloture Petition” be signed by 16 Senators to commence the process of shutting off debate on a nomination or legislation. The left wants to get rid of this rule because they don’t like the fact that the rule requires a vote of 60 members to shut off debate. They are mad because they can’t get Card Check and a Public Option passed in the Senate, even when they had a 60 vote Democrat Caucus, so they are going to change the rules of the game to make it easier to pass big government legislation. The effect of abolition of the filibuster would be to marginalize moderate Democrats in the Senate and eliminate the need for any input from Republicans.
The Constitution states in Article I, Section 5 that “each house may determine the rule of its proceedings.” The Senate has passed Rule 22 by a 2/3rds vote. In 2005, some Republicans flirted with the idea of abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees and the left fought that idea with all they had within the Senate and in left-leaning think tanks. In 2005, the term used to describe abolishing the filibuster was the “Nuclear Option.” Basically, this was a means to use a simple majority of the Senate to ignore the rules of the Senate by claiming the filibuster was unconstitutional.
The Center for American Progress (CAP) set up a page titled The Nuclear Option were they wrote “the filibuster is one of the only ways to encourage genuine bipartisan cooperation and compromise on important issues that come before the Senate.” CAP hosted a conference titled, Going Nuclear – The Threat to our System of Checks and Balances on April 25, 2005. John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress spoke at the event where he said:
by removing the safeguard offered by the filibuster, the nuclear option would seriously and perhaps irreparably damage an institution that has functioned since the its inception under customs and traditions that ensure an atmosphere of careful deliberation and mutual respect. Ultimately, this is not a dispute between the left and the right. It is a matter of right and wrong. It’s a choice between safeguarding our system of checks and balances or destabilizing it; between upholding the Senate’s coequal role in the confirmation progress or diminishing it.
This same think tank is now messaging for an abolition of the filibuster.
Other outlets who have advocated the abolition of the filibuster include New York Times, Mother Jones, Think Progress, and Washington Monthly. Daily Kos wants to “end the filibuster.” Ezra Klein maps out 4 ways to end the filibuster. Even the President and Vice President have weighed in against the filibuster. The irony is that many of these same politicians supported and participated in filibusters before they were against it.
Senator Barack Obama voted on January 30, 2006, to filibuster the nomination of Sam Alito to be a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Obama filibustered the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations … twice. The President’s words do not match up with his actions as a Senator.
Vice President Biden’s record also belies a double standard on the filibuster. Vice President Biden stated on May 23, 2005. that eliminating the filibuster from the Senate’s rules:
extinguishes the power of Independents and moderates in this Senate. That is it. They are done. Moderates are important only if you need to get 60 votes to satisfy cloture. They are much less important if you need only 50 votes. I understand the frustration of our Republican colleagues. I have been here 32 years, most of the time in the majority. Whenever you are in the majority, it is frustrating to see the other side block a bill or a nominee you support. I have walked in your shoes, and I get it.
Evidently some time in the executive branch has changed the minds of our President and Vice President.
On an interesting note, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) spoke at the CAP public event in 2005 and put the filibuster in historical context. “Plutarch reported that while Caesar was on sojourn in Spain, the election opposed his request and attempted to prevent his success by gaining time with which view he spun out the debate until it was too late to conclude upon anything that day. Hey! The filibuster has only been around 2,064 years, since circa 59 BC.” The filibuster has a very long tradition.
Both Republicans and Democrats have exhibited bipartisan hypocrisy on the issue of the filibuster. It is time for cooler heads to prevail and retain the long history and tradition of unlimited debate and amendment in the Senate. Any attempt to abolish the filibuster should be met with bipartisan disdain.
Last Saturday the Baltimore Ravens inflicted a stunning defeat on the New England Patriots in an NFL wildcard game. In interviews after the game, the Ravens’ all-world middle linebacker, Ray Lewis, explained how his defense had stuffed one of the great offenses of the modern era – through study and insight he knew their offense and tendencies as well as the Patriots did. Knowing the opposition has long been a key to victory.
As opposing forces gather in 2010 it’s important to understand the goals, mindset, and overall stratagem of the defenders of the death tax. Contrary to all expectations early in 2009, the death tax has expired. Congress allowed it to pass away temporarily on January 1 of this year when after nine years it failed to find a permanent compromise. By the end of 2009 there simply was no compromise that could get 60 votes in the Senate.
Now the tax is temporarily no more and still there is no 60-vote compromise. The obvious solution is to pass a compromise attached to a tax extenders bill – a bill extending a slew of long-established yet “temporary” tax provisions like the R&D tax credit that Congress once again to its shame allowed to lapse at the end of 2009. The trouble is, still no compromise.
The presumption is Congress will get around to a compromise sometime in 2010. It won’t. Not if the congressional leadership can help it. The left-most wing of the Democratic party in Congress, led by Speaker Pelosi, really want the death tax back the way it was before 2001. Not a $3 million exemption, but a $1 million exemption. Not a 30 or 35 or 45 percent rate, but a 55 percent rate. And all they have to do to get what they want is do nothing. Doing nothing is not a hard thing for Congress to do.
On January 1, 2011, death tax defenders get their wish automatically if Congress has by then managed to do nothing. They will take some heat if the death tax returns, but as the health care bill and the House vote on cap and trade demonstrated, congressional liberals and their allies are admirably willing to suffer political loss to achieve core belief policy gains.
The best solution is to keep the death tax dead. But it is coming back in one form or another. Proponents of death tax relief need to understand what the opposition is planning. They are planning to do nothing. To defeat them, and keep the death tax to a minimum, a maximum effort will be needed to compel Congress to act no later than the fall with an election bearing down and a short legislative calendar to work with.