Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: President-for-life Ogabe reaches out to abolish Senate filibusters
Zhang Fei    3/1/2009 8:49:00 PM
(Quote) President Obama’s budget director said the White House would consider using a Senate procedural tactic so that only 50 votes would be rquired to pass major healthcare and energy reforms. Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the administration would prefer not to use the budget reconciliation process to push through its package. But he added: "We have to keep everything on the table. We want to get these.... important things done this year." Orszag called healthcare in particular "the key to our fiscal future." Orszag made the comments on ABC’s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." Because they can not be filibustered, budget reconciliations only require 50 votes to pass the Senate. Democrats hold strong majorities in Congress, but still come up short of the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to end debate, which makes it easier for Republicans to block legislation. House rules in comparison make it harder for the minority party to stop bills. Still, using budget reconciliation to pass policy proposals is controversial, even among some Democrats who believe doing so strains Senate rules and tradition. The Obama blueprint calls for major changes in both energy and healthcare policies that is likely to engender significant opposition from Republicans and business lobbies. The reforms are expect to win widespread support from Democrats and more left-leaning constituencies. The budget plan calls for a cap on carbon emissions, for example, and projects $645 billion in revenues from an auction of pollution permits that a variety of business groups, including oil companies, large manufacturers and utilities, would have to purchase. On healthcare, the plan calls for a $634 billion reserve fund to pay for a first step on healthcare reform. The president would pay for it in large measure by raising taxes on wealthy people and businesses by about $1 trillion over 10 years. Republicans on Sunday criticized the document as a return of big government that would dramatically raise the deficit without providing the needed jolt to the economy. The budget is "proposing massive tax increases on people and on businesses that can’t afford to pay them," said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who also appeared on This Week. Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl said the budget was "terrifying" in its policy implications and "mind-boggling" in its numbers. But Orszag defended the $3.6 trillion budget plan by saying the plan cuts taxes for 95 percent of all working Americans. "I just reject the theory that the only thing that drives economic performance is the marginal tax rate on wealthy Americans and the only way of being pro-market is to funnel billions and billions of dollars of subsidies to corporations," Orszag said. Still, Democrats like Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) have expressed concern about rising deficits. The budget estimates a deficit in 2009 of $1.75 trillion, quadruple the level the previous year. It also projects rapidly shrinking deficits, however, by the end of Obama’s first term. Considering the political difficulties attendant on budget issues and the tenuous state of the economy, Stephanopoulos asked Orszag if the administration would support the creation of a budget commission that would make spending and tax recommendations that would be either voted up or down with no possibility of amendments. Such a process is now used to close military bases. Orszag left the door open on such a proposal, and also indicated a less ambitious commission focused only on health care as a possibility as well. (Unquote)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
YelliChink       3/1/2009 10:25:46 PM
How long does it take to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment?
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       3/1/2009 10:58:02 PM
Depends on how much cheating help you get from Acorn.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       3/1/2009 11:17:14 PM

Depends on how much cheating help you get from Acorn.


I was tempted to laugh at that... until I realized it was true.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       3/2/2009 1:50:04 AM
My question is, why? There's three "Republicans" more or less bought and paid for.  They'll get the 60 votes, and it may not be the Three Stooges who vote with the Democrats; other GOP types may find things to like and vote for it as well.  If it's so controversial that they need to lower the standard to 50 votes to pass legislation, then there's something wrong with it.  The Blue Dogs might not be too pleased, either.
 
Someone should quietly remind Obama that his continued screwups and overreach of power may put the Republicans back into the majority in Congress in 2010...making 50 votes all that's necessary to overturn Porkulus.  Or repeal his cap-and-spend ideas.  Or impeach his dumb ass.
 
Assuming we last that long, that is.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       3/2/2009 11:36:39 AM

My question is, why? There's three "Republicans" more or less bought and paid for.  They'll get the 60 votes, and it may not be the Three Stooges who vote with the Democrats; other GOP types may find things to like and vote for it as well.  If it's so controversial that they need to lower the standard to 50 votes to pass legislation, then there's something wrong with it.  The Blue Dogs might not be too pleased, either.

 

Someone should quietly remind Obama that his continued screwups and overreach of power may put the Republicans back into the majority in Congress in 2010...making 50 votes all that's necessary to overturn Porkulus.  Or repeal his cap-and-spend ideas.  Or impeach his dumb ass.

 

Assuming we last that long, that is.



Careful senty, you are starting to sound like me!   lol.
 
Your point is well taken.   He doesn't need to change the Senate rules to get what he wants so why the hell does he want to do this?  Me thinks a fouler plan is a foot here.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       3/2/2009 3:02:20 PM
Scary thought, huh?  On all accounts.
 
I think the 50-vote rule is mainly aimed at the Blue Dogs.  Apparently the Midwest Democrats are very upset about the probable loss of farm subsidies.  Obama is worried that they'll turn on him and vote with the Republicans, shutting his proposals down.  Like most idiots, he doesn't realize that he's probably going to end up driving a wedge into the Democrat Party...hopefully, a fatal one.
 
Just for the record, I'm not a Republican and have no intention of ever becoming one.  I regard political parties as a necessary evil.  It's gotten that bad.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       3/2/2009 4:03:05 PM
Scary indeed.
 
That thought crossed my mind. just as you said; maybe Obama is trying to pre-empt some of the fold wandering off from the herd.
 
As for political parties, I know a good many of the founders hated them but then again they knew they were unable to provide a suitable alternative.   They were great men but even great men are human as the politics between the early administrations (which continues to this day) shows.
 
The things they say about Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, hell, even Washington; we have a strong history of ****ing on our political enemies.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       3/5/2009 11:29:14 PM
>>
 
H. J. Res. 5:
111st Congresshttp://www.strategypage.com/media/help2.gif" style="float: left; margin-left: 5px;" width="16" height="16" alt="" />
2009-2010
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second...

Overview

Sponsor:
http://www.rdfabout.com/rdf/usgov/congress/people/S000248">http://www.rdfabout.com/rdf/usgov/congress/people/S000248" style="color: #0000cc;">Rep. José Serrano [D-NY](no cosponsors)
Text:
Summary | Full Text
Status:
http://www.strategypage.com/media/checkmark.gif" alt="Occurred: " /> Introduced Jan 6, 2009
http://www.strategypage.com/media/checkmark.gif" alt="Occurred: " /> Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
http://www.strategypage.com/media/box.gif" alt="Not Yet Occurred: " /> Reported by Committee (pending)
http://www.strategypage.com/media/box.gif" alt="Not Yet Occurred: " /> Voted on in House (pending
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       3/6/2009 3:25:07 AM
Yeah, I'd like to see that get two-thirds of the states to vote for it.
 
This has been floating around for awhile, though.  It was proposed when Clinton was President and also when Reagan was in.  Both Presidents joked about it, but I think Bill was the only one who had any serious thought behind it, and even he knew it wasn't going anywhere.
 
Given that Obama may soon be joining Hair Club for Men, I don't think he's going to want more than four years of this job, let alone eight or more.
 
Quote    Reply

Zhang Fei    Ogabe's to end the filibuster to pass $1t tax bill   3/18/2009 11:19:41 PM
(Quote)
President Barack Obama may try to push through Congress a health-care overhaul, energy proposals and tax increases by using a partisan tactic that would thwart Republican efforts to block the measures.

The administration and congressional Democrats are debating whether to use a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation to advance some of the biggest items on the president?s agenda. The move would allow Democrats to approve plans to raise taxes by $1 trillion, create a cap-and-trade system to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions, and overhaul health care without a single Republican vote.

?You?re talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them into the Chicago River,? said Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who stepped down last month as Obama?s pick for Commerce secretary. ?It takes the minority completely out of the process.?

Reconciliation reduces the number of votes needed to pass legislation in the 100-seat Senate to a simple majority rather than the 60 required to overcome resistance to major bills. The tactic also limits debate to no more than 20 hours and imposes restrictions on amendments.

Senate Democrats have a majority with 58 votes, though Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who is struggling with brain cancer, is frequently absent. Several other Democrats often vote with Republicans.

House Democrats

House Democrats are pushing to use reconciliation because it would help ensure they don?t end up voting for tax increases and other legislation that can be blocked by Senate Republicans.

?On those big issues, people are going to want some sense that there is a decent chance that the Senate will act,? said Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat.

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told lawmakers last week the administration hasn?t decided how to proceed.

?We?re not taking anything off the table,? Orszag told the Senate Budget Committee. An Office of Management and Budget spokesman didn?t respond to a request for comment. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, declined to say which way Democrats are leaning.

?We?re having conversations,? he said.

Democrats will have to decide soon because reconciliation, if it is to be used, would have to be included as part of the annual budget blueprint lawmakers hope to complete next month.

Deficit-Cutting Measure

The procedure was created 40 years ago as a way of making it easier for lawmakers to cut the federal budget deficit. It has been increasingly used in recent years to protect bills from partisan attacks. Former President George W. Bush employed the practice to muscle tax cuts through the Senate, while Democrats used it in 2007 to cut subsidies to student-loan providers such as Reston, Virginia-based Sallie Mae, officially SLM Corp.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., in a research note this month, called the reconciliation decision this year ?extremely important? because of its impact on the odds of Obama?s initiatives becoming law. While Democrats won expanded majorities in Congress and control of the White House in last year?s elections, their grip on the Senate is tenuous.

Last month, the party?s lawmakers were forced to cut tens of billions of dollars from Obama?s economic-stimulus package, over the objections of House Democrats, to win the support of the three Senate Republicans needed to get the 60 votes required for Senate passage.

Weeks later, in another sign of Democrats? fragile control of the Senate, Republicans blocked a $410 billion omnibus bill until they were given more time to offer amendments. No major bills have passed the Senate this year with more than eight Republican votes.

Political Cost

The maneuver may carry a steep political cost because it is likely to poison relations with Senate Republicans, who would be excluded from the deliberations over some of the most important bills of Obama?s presidency. Gregg and other party lawmakers said using the tactic would be a departure from Obama?s campaign pledge to bridge the partisan divide in Washington.

Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, warned Obama to expect retaliation from his colleagues if the president chooses reconciliation.

?There?s other things he?s going to need Republican support on,? Cornyn said.

Republicans ?invite? reconciliation ?if they?re just going to be obstructionists,? said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat.

Republican Retaliation

Using reconciliation may also have consequences for Democratic lawmakers. Eight Senate Democrats signed a letter opposing using the tactic to approve climate-change legislation even if that would make it easier to get a bill

 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics