Subject: [big campaign] New Huff Post from Creamer-Why We Must Reform Senate Rules in January
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:50:49 -0500 (EST)
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

Why it is Critical to Reform Senate Rules In  January 

The first day of a new Congress is generally filled with ceremonial  events 
and receptions.  But the  first day of the next Congress, January 5, 2011, 
could be the most important  legislative day of the entire session. 
The day a new Senate convenes, fifty-one Senators can set the rules for  
the body with a simple majority vote.  January 5, 2011 is the day that the 
Senate should adopt rules that limit  the ability of the minority to obstruct 
and circumvent the will of the majority  by using the filibuster and secret 
holds. 
For the first time in years, there is a major movement afoot among  
Democratic Senators to make those changes.  That movement is fueled by growing 
frustration among Democratic voters at  the way Republican leader Mitch 
McConnell calls so many shots in the Senate,  even though Democrats are in the 
majority. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is  forced by the Senate rules to get 
60 votes for almost any substantial piece of  legislation. Democrats want 
their members of the Senate to stand up and fight  back. 
Just as important, a clear message of the November election was the  demand 
from swing voters that Washington takes action and gets results –  
especially when it comes to the economy.  Voters want an end to partisan  gridlock. 
Frustration among Democrats has boiled over in response to the deal that  
President Obama was forced to cut with Republicans in order to guarantee  
critically needed economic stimulus for the fragile economy.  To pass critical 
new economic stimulus  programs and the continuation of others like 
Unemployment Compensation, and a  number of middle class tax cuts, Republican 
leaders demanded a two- year  extension of the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy.   
In addition, they threw in a demand that the inheritance tax, which was  
due to return to its pre-2001 levels at the first of the year, be cut as  
well.  Estates under $5 million for  individuals and $10 million for couples 
would be exempt entirely. And the rates  paid by the multi-millionaire families 
that remained would be cut to 35%.  This proposal would save hundreds of  
millions of dollars for the sons and daughters of multi-millionaires.  
Democrats in Congress were outraged that  to assure aide to the unemployed, the 
Paris Hiltons of the world would be handed  millions of dollars by the 
Republicans  leadership. 
Many everyday voters simply can’t understand why, if the Democrats  control 
the White House, the Senate – and at least for the next few weeks, the  
House – they can’t pass gravely needed economic stimulus without doing this 
kind  of deal with Republicans.  How is it  that the Republican leaders could 
hold unemployment and middle class tax cuts  hostage to the needs of the 
rich? 
The answer is the Senate Rules.  Democrats currently have a majority of 58 
votes in the Senate.  But to pass anything meaningful they  need a 
super-majority of 60.  That’s  not because the Constitution requires such a 
super-majority.  It’s because of rules adopted by members  of the Senate – that have 
been abused by the obstructionist Republican  minority. 
Republicans  weren’t going to give votes to any measure for economic 
stimulus unless tax  breaks for the rich were part of the  package. 
Infuriating?  It’s just the  latest in a series of successful Republican 
attempts to obstruct action by the  majority. 
Just think how different the last two years would have been if every  
measure did not require 60 votes: 
* Congress would  have passed a substantially larger economic stimulus plan 
in early 2009 that  could have materially increased the rate of economic 
growth and put millions of  Americans back to work.  Not only  would that have 
benefited everyday Americans, it would have translated into much  better 
Democratic performance in last month’s elections – and all that implies  over 
the next two years. 
* The health care reform bill would have included a Public Option that  
would have helped control health care costs, cut the long- term Federal 
deficit,  and – because it was one of the most popular elements of the President’s 
health  care reform – would have increased the popularity of the entire  
measure. 
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform would have passed the Congress and  been 
signed into law. 
* “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”  would have been repealed. 
* And, of course the tax cuts for the Middle Class and unemployment  
insurance would have been continued -- and tax breaks for the wealthy would have  
been discontinued.   Who knows,  Congress might even have been able to pass 
legislation imposing a large tax on  the outrageous, obscene multi-million 
dollar bonuses being paid by Wall Street  to its top producers – just in time 
for  Christmas. 
In fact, the  current Senate rules not only empower minority Republicans, 
they also empower  Wall Street and other special interests.  It’s very hard 
to get a 60- vote super -majority for any major policy in  America.  The 60- 
vote super-majority means that  special interests can concentrate their 
efforts – and contributions – on  recruiting just a few Senators who can then 
prevent the Senate from taking any  action that compromises their interests. 
It empowers political “hostage takers”  who represent the most powerful 
elements of corporate America rather  than the majority of Americans. 
Senators are  talking about a number of key ways to change Senate rules 
that would limit the  power of the minority to obstruct the will of the 
majority.   
Senator Tom Harkin has proposed a plan to lower the number of votes  needed 
to cut off debate (to end a filibuster) gradually over a number of  days.  
The first day it would take  60 votes.  Two days later it would  take 57 
votes.  Two days after that,  55 votes -- then 53 and finally 51.   
Others have proposals to shift the burden of maintaining a filibuster to  
those who want to prevent a majority vote.  You might, for instance, require 
that at any time, at any hour, any  member could ask for a “Cloture Call,”, 
much the same way they can ask for a  quorum call today.  If 41 Senators  
did not report to the floor to answer that they wished to sustain the  
filibuster, then the filibuster would end. Such a rule would require those who  
want to filibuster to actually filibuster – and to constantly provide the 
votes  to sustain it.   
Right now the burden is on the majority to muster the 60 votes necessary  
to end a filibuster – not the other way around.  That task is made more 
difficult because  all the minority needs to do is call for a quorum, and if 51 
Senators do not  report to the floor, the Senate is simply adjourned until a 
quorum is once again  present.  Then the “filibuster” can  resume.  Right 
now there is no  incentive for the minority not to filibuster everything.   
Under the proposals of those who  want to shift the burden of maintaining a 
filibuster to the minority, any quorum  call would automatically trigger an 
end to the filibuster.   
Reformers have  proposed a variety of other changes, such as ending 
filibusters for nominations,  eliminating onerous time requirements intended to 
make it impractical for the  Senate to consider controversial issues or 
nominations, and ending “secret  holds”.  
What are the arguments made against changing the Senate  rules? 
Some Democrats are worried that if the Republicans once again take  control 
of the Senate in 2012, they would be unable to use the filibuster to  stop 
right wing initiatives. The problem with that argument is that no one  
doubts that if the Republicans took control of the Senate and felt they needed  
to change the rules to have their way, they would change the rules in a heart 
 beat.   One thing you have to  admire about the Republicans, they do what 
ever is necessary to achieve their  goals.  Nothing would stop them from  
ending the filibuster and changing other Senate rules as well, if they stood 
in  their way. 
In fact the Republicans already threatened to take precisely that action  
in the confrontation with Democrats over judicial nominees in 2005.  The 
Republicans didn’t do it then,  because Democrats agreed not to use the 
filibuster “except in extra-ordinary  circumstances”.  
Other Democrats believe that the current Senate rules foster  
bi-partisanship.  In fact, just the  opposite is true.  The 60-vote rule  gives the 
Republicans every incentive to try to kill legislation.  If bills required a 
simple majority, the  minority would be forced to negotiate if they wanted to 
affect the shape of  legislation since they would no longer have the power to 
obstruct them  outright. 
And finally there are some Senators who argue that the Senate is governed  
by “continuing rules” that can only be changed by 67 votes.  The Supreme 
Court ruled years ago that  the only limitation imposed by the Constitution on 
the rules of Congress is that  a quorum of the Senate is 50 percent plus 
one.  And of course the idea that previous  Senates can bind the rules of the 
current Senate is ridiculous on its face.  What if one Senate passed a rule 
that  all bills required 80% of all votes and that it took 100% of Senators 
to change  them? That would effectively prevent the Senate from taking 
action on anything  the least bit controversial.  Would  it then be impossible 
ever again to change the Senate rules to make it function  once again without 
unanimous consent?  Obviously that’s absurd. 
In fact, if fifty- one Senators vote yes on a new package of Senate rules  
and the Vice-President, who is Presiding Officer of the Senate, rules that 
they  acted properly, those will be the new Senate rules, since the Courts 
have no  basis to challenge them.  
Next year the Republicans will have iron clad control of the House.  It 
would be outrageous if Democrats  allowed a minority of Republican Senators to 
use the current rules to limit what  the Democratic majority can do in the 
Senate. If they are not changed, the  Republicans will use the current Senate 
rules to call the shots in the Senate as  well as the House – and to 
materially limit the President’s ability to enact a  Democratic program. The 
process of negotiation between Republicans in the House  and Democrats in the 
Senate will become a negotiation between a House that  speaks with a clear 
Republican voice and a Senate where the Democratic majority  and Republican 
Minority effectively act as co-equals.   
So if you’re furious at how Mitch McConnell’s Republican minority is  
holding America hostage, the time has come to  do something about it.  Ask your  
Senators to support changing the Senate rules that allow the Republican 
minority  to obstruct the will of the majority. 
Robert Creamer is a long-time political  organizer and strategist, and 
author of the book:  Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can  Win, available on 
_Amazon.com._ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Your-Mother-Straight-Progressives/dp/0979585295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213241439&sr=8-1)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.