Harry Reid’s op-ed giving the inside story about the non-nuclear option he accomplished last week is good for the way it shows how Senate Republicans have worked to decay the functioning of the chamber.
On Thursday morning, we seemed to be on the brink of passing a bill to curb unfair currency manipulation by the Chinese government, a practice that has cost millions of American manufacturing jobs over the past two decades. The bill — which is supported by business and labor interests — had garnered a bipartisan supermajority not just once but twice. With passage virtually assured, the minority reached for the only tool left to try and derail the bill, confronting us with a potentially unlimited number of votes on completely unrelated amendments. Voting on these amendments would require suspending the Senate’s rules — an obscure procedure that hadn’t been used frequently until this Congress and hasn’t been used successfully since 1941.
None of the amendments Republicans demanded were about policy. Each was an attempt to score political points or provide fodder for campaign ads. None was related to the legislation on the floor, which would support 1.6 million American jobs. None would put a single American back to work. Yet still we tried to reach a compromise with our Republican colleagues.
We offered votes on four amendments, and they wanted five. We offered five votes, and they wanted six. Finally, we offered votes on seven amendments, including a vote on an outdated version of President Obama’s American Jobs Act, with which Republicans were seeking to score political points. Still, Republicans refused. They came back with a demand for nine votes that required suspending the Senate’s rules. The same logic that allows for nine unstoppable motions to suspend the rules could lead to consideration of 99 such motions.
That’s the whole thing in a nutshell. Republicans found a new way to delay legislation even after it passed two cloture votes. They claim to want to work on legislation and that they’re being prevented from calling up amendments. Yet the amendments they call up are nothing more than bumper stickers, because they have no interest in legislating. They aren’t germane and are merely designed for 30-second TV ads. Even when Senate Democrats are endlessly accommodating, the Republicans seek more and more delay.
This is abuse. But it’s almost more abusive to respond to this with narrow blockages like making non-germane post-cloture amendments dilatory. The answer is to end this phony process of super-majorities and unanimous consent and painless filibusters that has slowed the Senate to molasses. Some would say this is a wrong time to fix that, when neither party can get its agenda across anyway and when Republicans have a good chance to take control of the Senate. But party should not be the reason that actual governing goes by the boards.
A party that wins an election should have the right to have its agenda adopted. If voters don’t like it, that’s what elections are for. The gridlock that follows a clear mandate from the public weakens institutions and delays accountability. If Harry Reid is sincere about the abuse being done to the Senate, he should use the same procedures he used last week to abolish the super-majority Senate once and for all.
But he’s more interested in pointing the finger at Republicans for failing to abide by an agreement not to obstruct legislation, as if a scorpion can change its nature. It’s great that “60 votes to end debate will mean debate actually ends, as the rules of the Senate intended,” as Reid says. But it’s not something to settle for.




22 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
A party that wins an election should have the right to have its agenda adopted. If voters don’t like it, that’s what elections are for.
LOL, david you are bringing tears to my eyes. how about the fact candidates say one thing to get elected and do another once in power. let alone all the other things wrong with our so called voting system. But yep we can go on dreaming that if we don’t like what our politicians are doing we can change that at the next election. O really proved that to be true, not
The English neutered its House of LORDS over 125 yrs. ago , when are we going to do the same. This friggin millionaires club doesn’t represent shit.
A little off point, but the picture you posted above is very telling (the one with Obama patting Cantor on the back while Reid is a few paces behind Obama). Everytime I see it, I think Obama’s patting Cantor on the back saying “I love you, guys. We’ll get Medicare and Social Security reform done, even if it means pissing on my base. I hate liberals as much as you guys, do. We can come together on that. Now if we could just get rid of that dumbass from Nevada, you and I could really hang out sometime.”.
Even if this bill becomes law, which it won’t, does anyone on this planet think Obama and his Wall Street buddies would allow any actual tariffs to be place on Chinese goods and services?
Just another act in the Democrats “We suck less, 2012 campaign”
Shorter Reid: “I didn’t use the Nuclear Option. I didn’t like the way Republicans were using the rules, so I was able to blow up the rules using conventional weapons.”
Ho hum… another day, another Act in the ongoing Kabuki Show…
Elections mean bupkiss for “small people” when the Oligarchs have bought off everyone in sight.
EXACTLY.
Progressives should rejoice at ending the filibuster and the need for super majorities since change is required to make the government’s policies more progressive. It’s the conservatives that don’t want the rules changed because they’re fine with the status quo.
Imagine finally getting a real, uncorrupted, progressive party in the majority in both Houses. And the voters put them there. Yet the filibuster would mean no real changes unless we not only got a majority but we got a supermajority.
But, just like voting for Obama cause they’re ascared of the Republicans, lots of progressives are also so ascared of the big bad Republicans that they don’t want the filibuster ended. As if the D party would really filibuster something the 1% wanted anyway.
It’s progressives that act scared all the time. I’ve read on here that conservatives must live in fear all the time but facts show it’s progressives that operate out of fear.
I welcome the opportunity to require only 51 Senators to get real change passed. And if the voters reject that change and put another Party back in, then, as you said, that party too SHOULD get to legislate as desired.
End the filibuster, end ALL the delay and block tactics in both Houses, and give Democracy a chance. Don’t let fear rule your decisions.
WHO IS A BIGGER FAILURE:
Ocoma as president or
Reid as Senate majority leader
Both are sellouts to me, you decide
If we EVER start another country from scratch, we need to re-visit this bi-cameral legislaturd shit.
mac said: “Just another act in the Democrats “We suck less, 2012 campaign”
—–
I hope they haven’t printed the bumber stickers yet. I’m not so sure they can pull that off.
Right on point. Suppose, though, we had serious electoral reforms: regulating campaign financing, ending the Electoral College, and allowing more — not fewer — people to vote (Thanks, ALEC). We’d still be straddled with the euphemistically-titled “low-information” voter, the ones who believe Iraq was behind 9/11 and watch fact-free FOX.
I’m afraid that America is getting the government it deserves, given its lack of attention and participation.
WOW!!!!!!!! That’s a tough one. Can I get back to ya’ on that?
I’d like to argue that with you………. I can’t. But I’d LIKE TO. Amazing, how, in the “information age”, so many people have the WRONG information.
Reid leads the parade of useless Senators although I have an idea that they are all useless. They not only don’t do anything worthwhile, they spend a lot of time hurting Americans. And we will never be able to get rid of the Senate. But we at least can work hard to get rid of the really bad ones – let’s start with Cantor.
It all comes down to the Benjamin’s and, of course, the “dancin’ an little sidestep, now you see me now you don’t.”
That was such a great scene in the movie. I have the song on my iPod because it makes me laugh.
Cantor is the bastard bully who the week after tropical storm Irene devastated the northeast, said flood recovery funds would not be forthcoming until the budget was cut in equal amount (which of course would be from social programs), thus pitting flood victims against the elderly and the poor.
As I understand it, this bill involves trying to force the Chinese to devalue their currency against the dollar. Even Boehner understood this is beyond the pale, not to mention stupid. Reid can’t really want it to pass. You’re absolutely right: it’s the we suck less campaign.
It’s not the structure of government. It’s the corruption of the politicos that inhabit it today. They are the ones who have made it a den of thieves.
If Reid had wanted to stop the endless BS, he should have agreed to the plan to do so when they were coming into session in January! By saying no and extracting what he had to know was a worthless promise from McConnell not to obstruct things, he should take as much blame as he’s trying to dish out. In the meantime, we have more and more millions of families falling off the cliff into extreme and abject poverty, starvation and homelessness (in violation of the UN’s Millenium Goals I might add!). When are they going to stop being the clubs the jerks in DC are using against each other?
Like Tom Udall of New Mexico (trying not to smirk today on the Senate floor, while pretending that Senate precedents are the same thing as Senate rules), Harry Reid obviously prides himself on his ability to lie to the American people with a straight face.
It’s pretty astonishing that intelligent writers at FDL either continue to fall for such lies or, worse, know better, but, for reasons of partisan advantage or credential-building, or otherwise, can’t be bothered to enlighten their readers about the snake-in-the-grass tactics of Mr. Reid.
For example, I absolutely and heartily agree with this statement by David (although I assume that we disagree about why it’s “the answer”):
But since I’ve taken the time to educate myself about how the Senate rules and precedents do and don’t affect “the phony process of supermajorities and unanimous consent and painless [so-called] filibusters” (and don’t have a stake in artificially propping up the reputation of the Democratic Party), I can quickly spot all the Party-peddled fallacies in the sentence that immediately preceded that conclusion (bracketed insertions added by me):
[There's a reason the Democrats carefully avoided a public floor debate Thursday evening about what they were doing/had done.]
And because I have a pretty good understanding of the game that Reid is playing with the rules and precedents of the Senate, for perceived partisan gain at the expense of the institution itself, I also understand how completely counterproductive and reckless is the specific remedy David proffers – which conveniently ignores the indisputable facts about how a “supermajority” Senate has been deliberately chosen, by the Reid-led Democratic Caucus (which has played an historically-unprecedented role in fostering the present state of affairs, empowering Party leadership at the expense of individual Senators), to displace the simple-majority default regular order and rules of that institution:
Anyone paying close attention understands that Harry Reid himself is wholly insincere about protecting the democratic, deliberative nature of the public Senate that his predecessors preserved for the benefit of today’s ungrateful, public-debate-shunning incumbents. I think that Reid, enabled by the irresponsible, hands-off followers in both Party caucuses, has probably done more to damage that institution – through abusive practices – than perhaps any Majority Leader since that position was, regrettably, first invented a century or so ago.
Reid pretending to make a big deal about an occasional motion to suspend the rules (with one day’s notice), when unanimous consent to do the same is routinely asked for and granted daily, with no notice, by Reid himself, and others in the Senate, would be laughable if it wasn’t so intentionally deceitful.
Anyone who prefers an explanation unfiltered by Party allegiance, of last week’s ugly suppression by the Democratic Party, and its Majority Leader, of democratic deliberative legislating in the Senate, is welcome to read my extensively-documented account, posted at FDL last Friday.
Others might be interested in this excerpted version, which explains, to the best of my ability, the key procedural facts that Reid carefully omitted from his self-serving op-ed:
Hey powwow,great breakdown.I was impressed and enlightened.Anyone complicit in retaining this super-majority monkeyshit is a moral disgrace who has aided and abetted in America’s downfall.This,however, is an excellent distillation of typical bipartisan theatrics,with the pubs being strong and wrong and the dems being weak but well-meaning losers. Thanks again .