Skip to main content

View Diary: A new Senate? (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What would be the effect of filibuster reform (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, Bensdad

    on ACA?  On taxes?  On long standing progressive achievements from the past century?

    I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to this question, and while its frustrating to see so much obstructionism in the Senate, I am appalled by what can get passed in the House.

    •  On the ACA (4+ / 0-)

      the effect would have been that there wouldn't have been all those horrendous town hall meetings in the summer on 2009.
      And remember - the Tea Party was a partially birthed through those town halls.
      Obama and Reid could have passed the ACA through a 51 vote procedure but instead they kept trying for the 60 vote goal.
      Plus, the proposed "talking filibuster" would in no way turn the Senate into the House.

      •  And after the fact? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ACA was tough to pass, but would filibuster reform make it easier to repeal?

        That's trade off as I see it.  Progressives took a hundred years to build enough consensus to achieve what ultimately became ACA, but it is now (save for the components passed through reconciliation) entrenched.  Do we dare stand down that fire wall?

        •  if the GOP can get 60+ Senators sure (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Capt Crunch, milton333

          Repealing programs is more difficult than instituting them. And they grow more popular over time.

          So while I understand your point about the filibuster protecting important Democratic achievements, I think you overestimate the likelihood of laws being repealed.

          Can you think of a single serious piece of legislation that has been repealed (by either party) in the past three decades?

          •  But that's just isn't it? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The GOP won't need 60+ Senators.  They'll only need 51 or 50 and the Vice President.  Of course, they'll need the House and the Senate, but that was exactly what they had for 4 years in the last decade.

            •  nobody was talking about eliminating filibuster (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alice kleeman

              And making the Senate like the House. Even the Merkley proposal would have enabled a determined minority to block legislation, they just would have had to speak on the floor to do so. And I'm pretty sure it would be a good thing for 41 Democratic Senators to spend months on the floor telling America why they are preserving the ACA. Would have been good to have done the same before they passed it, after all.

              •  Granted. (0+ / 0-)

                The Merkley proposal was very modest and preserves the minority's capacity to block action, just like you say.

                However, if the Senate can change its rules with a simple majority, then what's to stop the GOP from going nuclear and gutting the fish?

        •  ACA wouldn't have been repealed anyway. (3+ / 0-)

          Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Corporatists loved it and still do. If the Republicans tried to repeal it, lobbyists would descend from the heavens and put a quick stop to that. The House keeps on putting it up for repeal because it gets them votes from their sick and twisted followers.

          As long as it takes 60 votes to get anything done...nothing is going to get done, except legislation that actively and directly hurts the 99%.

          So prepare for more cuts to the programs that keep us at least somewhat afloat. Because the Corporatist wing of the Dems and the Republican sociopaths are going to get together in a quiet room and take that all away from all of us.

          This Filibuster "Reform" is total and utter bullshit and Harry Reid, the Villagers, and the Republicans know it. So fuck all of them.

          The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

          by cybrestrike on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 09:52:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  would filibuster reform make it easier to repeal? (0+ / 0-)

          Next question.

          •  Care to explain a little more? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            •  First off there is no real political will (0+ / 0-)

              to repeal the entire ACA. That's reality.
              Secondly, trying to repeal the ACA ala carté would be such a heavy lift it's never going to happen - no matter what Hatch might think.
              Additionally, the entire argument that the 60 vote rule protects good legislation is bogus. The 60 vote rule prevents good legislation. I've already pointed out how it was preventing the good ACA from being passed until they went to a 51 vote procedure.
              That leads to my final point.
              Your first comment was how did the 60 vote rule impact ACA legislation. I answered that.
              Having received an answer to that question you then switched to a NEW question. You never bothered to even acknowledge my answer to your original question. Seems like you're just afraid of change and making it up as you go along.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site