-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Discordia - Brought to you by the number 60
Author: BobR
Date: 07/08/2009 12:23:29
It finally happened - Senator Al Franken was sworn in to the Senate yesterday, bringing the total number of Democrats in the Senate to 60. There is an automatic assumption associated with this that now the Democrats can pass any bill they want. What it really means is that they could block filibusters on any bill and call for cloture (remember the "up or down" mantra from back in the day when Democrats were the ones doing the filibustering?). The reality of course is that the number means nothing.
The main reason for this is the wide diversity of Democrats. Some (such as Evan Bayh) are more conservative than some of their Republican counterparts (such as Snowe or Collins). There are other reasons as well:
So let's put this out there right from the start: the Democratic leadership needs every single Senate Democrat to vote in unison, plus 2 Republicans, plus both Independents. How often is that really going to happen? There's also an assumption that the Senate Democrats will always side with Obama. How has that worked out so far?
They certainly didn't side with Obama regarding transferring the inmates from Gitmo to U.S. soil. They decided instead to vote against it:
There are two other major legislative initiatives in the works as well. The first - Cap & Trade - squeaked through the House and faces tough hurdles in Senate. The deals and compromises have already begun:
The other major initiative - reforming health care - is showing just how difficult it is to get everyone on the same page:
Considering that "moderate" (ie: conservative) Democrats even have their own caucus (Blue Dogs), the notion that the magic number 60 means anything in practice is ludicrous. As long as every Senator (well - politician, really) thinks about how his/her vote will look in a campaign ad by the opposition before they vote rather than about the real merits of the bill, we'll see business as usual in DC... And by "business as usual", I mean very little change being accomplished.
Perhaps this can be looked upon as being like "the good old days" when Republicans were reasonable, and power was shared, and change occurred, albeit at slow, careful, thought-out pace.
*sigh*
The main reason for this is the wide diversity of Democrats. Some (such as Evan Bayh) are more conservative than some of their Republican counterparts (such as Snowe or Collins). There are other reasons as well:
Democrats now hold 60 seats, enough to block filibusters — but only if every Democrat and two independents show up, and they all vote together. The chamber's most senior members, Robert Byrd and Edward M. Kennedy, are ill and haven't voted in weeks. Without them there, Democrats need the support of at least two Republicans.
So let's put this out there right from the start: the Democratic leadership needs every single Senate Democrat to vote in unison, plus 2 Republicans, plus both Independents. How often is that really going to happen? There's also an assumption that the Senate Democrats will always side with Obama. How has that worked out so far?
They certainly didn't side with Obama regarding transferring the inmates from Gitmo to U.S. soil. They decided instead to vote against it:
The U.S. Senate Wednesday voted to block the transfer of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention center and withhold money requested by the Obama administration to close the facility. It is a major setback for President Barack Obama, who on Thursday is expected to address lawmakers' concerns about his plan to shutdown Guantanamo by January of next year.
The Democratic-led Senate voted 90 to 6 to deny the Obama administration the $80 million it sought for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility by early next year. It also blocked the use of the funds to transfer detainees held at the center to U.S. soil.
There are two other major legislative initiatives in the works as well. The first - Cap & Trade - squeaked through the House and faces tough hurdles in Senate. The deals and compromises have already begun:
The House narrowly passed its more than 1,200-page version of the bill last week, after last-minute White House wrangling locked in the support of rural and Rust Belt Democrats. Now the bill moves to the Senate, where the administration will face an even tougher fight persuading skeptical moderate Democrats to back it.
To attract broader support, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intends to couple a package of bipartisan energy provisions passed by Bingaman’s committee with the controversial cap-and-trade bill that will be drafted by the Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
The other major initiative - reforming health care - is showing just how difficult it is to get everyone on the same page:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) abruptly waded into health care reform negotiations Tuesday, telling Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) that Democratic leaders had serious concerns about a bill that would tax health benefits and nix a strong public insurance option.
Baucus had been moving in that exact direction before the July 4th recess, and the pressure from Reid to change course threatens to disrupt the delicate bipartisan negotiations that have been going on for months inside the Finance Committee. Reid’s move could also endanger Democratic hopes of sticking to a strict timeline aimed at passing a bill in the Senate before the August recess.
Baucus was believed to be closing in on a bill that he thought could win support from moderate Democrats and a handful of Republicans, with a tax on employer-provided benefits to pay for the $1 trillion plan and a nonprofit insurance cooperative that falls short of a full public plan. It would have forced compromises that upset more liberal members of the Democratic caucus, but in Baucus’s view, it was the only way to cobble together a filibuster-proof majority.
Considering that "moderate" (ie: conservative) Democrats even have their own caucus (Blue Dogs), the notion that the magic number 60 means anything in practice is ludicrous. As long as every Senator (well - politician, really) thinks about how his/her vote will look in a campaign ad by the opposition before they vote rather than about the real merits of the bill, we'll see business as usual in DC... And by "business as usual", I mean very little change being accomplished.
Perhaps this can be looked upon as being like "the good old days" when Republicans were reasonable, and power was shared, and change occurred, albeit at slow, careful, thought-out pace.
*sigh*
