On Monday at the America’s Future Now conference, Sen. Dick Durbin went out of his way to mention the proposed changes to the Senate rules spearheaded by Sen. Tom Udall, hedging in the direction of what he called “protecting minority rights.”
Durbin said that without the filibuster, President George W. Bush would likely have succeeded in privatizing Social Security.
“We have to find a reasonable way to continue the protection of minority rights in the United States government but beyond the abuses that are seen today,” he said.
I wrote at the time that Durbin was incorrectly raising the spectre of Social Security privatization, when that bill lost not as the result of the filibuster, but because it was deeply unpopular and the Republicans never took it up in the Senate.
Tom Udall backed up my memory when he appeared at the America’s Future Now conference today. Udall said that “as I remember it, we had a vote, a very close vote in the House, and it didn’t succeed. It never made it to the Senate.”
Durbin’s larger point was that Democrats must preserve the minority veto over legislation in case they find themselves in the minority at a future point. Udall said that Durbin generally supports his effort to get the Senate to change their rules, and that the argument is really over what to do with those rules rather than whether to move forward. “I think we can find a happy medium,” Udall said, where minority rights are respected but where the majority can actually function, in contrast to the sclerotic fashion in which they operate currently. Udall has been more insistent on getting the Senate to write their own rules than to set particular limits on what those rules would look like. Obviously, he wants to reduce the impact of the filibuster, but there are a number of ways to get to that point.
Udall singled out the over 100 nominees from the White House that have yet to be confirmed in the Senate, saying that it stands to reason that a President should be able to pick his own staff in a reasonable amount of time. He cited the frustrations of the over 20 Senators on the Democratic side brought in during the wave elections of 2006 and 2008, and how their message of change hit the reality of the Senate rules.
Udall still plans to offer a point of order which would change the Senate rules in the first day of the next Congress, in January of 2011. He described it as central to every challenge the country faces.



8 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
What really makes no sense: Why is Social Security on the table at all? It’s funded separately from the rest of the federal budget, and there’s very little being done to reduce the largest portion of discretionary spending. That’s military spending.
I can’t even imagine what this depression would have looked like had we not had Social Security to rely on for our elderly, paying them what they paid in. Our entire economy needed it to work just as it has, unchanged.
The real problem is that Social Security has been lumped in erroneously with the rest of the budget instead of being put in a lock box as Al Gore suggested what seems like eons ago.
“…where minority rights are respected but where the majority can actually function, …”
We have the Bill of Rights and a few other amendments to protect “minority rights. The fillibuster is not about “rights”, preferences perhaps.
I appreciate the basic premise of the fillibuster rule but it has become a singular obstruction to governance and must change.
Make them filibuster instead of just saying they are.
If they actually had to keep talking to filibuster, they it would only be used as a last resort.
Boxer….. slamming on the floor! Protect “CORPORATIONS?” by ignoring scientific finding, like smoking causes cancer, lead cause brain damage, and the world is not round but flat.
Perpetuate, America’s testicles in the “noose” of oil?
The Flaccidcrats don’t have the balls to use the filibuster anyway, so it would be to their advantage to end it.
What are the exact changes? They should at least eliminate the ripening rule and change the requirement to those present and voting versus all members duly sworn in.
I think that would make a huge difference even if the 3/5 stayed. Although that kind of non-controversial change should have been made in 2008.
Well said but no senator would tell the truth,cuz wall st is in the background.
you see I think somewhere along the line they are going to put forth
the argument…well social security is unsustainable…and
so here comes Wall St Banksters…they are dying to get their hands on social security.
Don’t worry Washington will find a way to hand it over to ‘em.
Because Congress has ‘borrowed’ $1.7 TRILLION from Social Security and has no intention of making good on that debt.
They borrowed the money, in part to allow low taxes on rich folks and corporations.
It’s sort of like Enron accounting, load all your debt on an off-the-books entity, and then sink that entity.
Saturn corp had paid off its factory in Spring Hill Tn for instance, and GM refinanced it prior to banruptcy and killing Saturn Corp.
Where did the money from the Spring Hill refinance go?
You can bet it wasn’t invested in Saturn.