Here’s a summary of rule changes proposed:
Clear Path to Debate: Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Proceed
Makes motions to proceed not subject to a filibuster, but provides for two hours of debate. This proposal has had bipartisan support for decades and is often mentioned as a way to end the abuse of holds.Eliminates Secret Holds
Prohibits one Senator from objecting on behalf of another, unless he or she discloses the name of the senator with the objection. This is a simple solution to address a longstanding problem.Right to Amend: Guarantees Consideration of Amendments for both Majority and Minority
Protects the rights of the minority to offer amendments following cloture filing, provided the amendments are germane and have been filed in a timely manner.This provision addresses comments of Republicans at last year’s Rules Committee hearings. Each time Democrats raised concerns about filibusters on motions to proceed, Republicans responded that it was their only recourse because the Majority Leader fills the amendment tree and prevents them from offering amendments. Our resolution provides a simple solution – it guarantees the minority the right to offer germane
amendments.Talking Filibuster: Ensures Real Debate
Following a failed cloture vote, Senators opposed to proceeding to final passage will be required to continue debate as long as the subject of the cloture vote or an amendment, motion, point of order, or other related matter is the pending business.Expedite Nominations: Reduce Post-Cloture Time
Provides for two hours of post-cloture debate time for nominees.Post cloture time is meant for debating and voting on amendments — something that is not possible on nominations. Instead, the minority now requires the Senate use this time simply to prevent it from moving on to other business.
This is clearly interesting to policy wonks, but the news media must feel it’s boring to their regular audience.
It would be covered if Lindsay Lohans’ bracelet went off during the discussion
If the Republicans ever get 51 seats in the Senate then you can bet there will be coverage.
The same people who thought Bush had too much executive power thought it was just enough when Obama had it.
“Bush did it” – not just an excuse, it’s a campaign slogan!
I saw this last night on CBS evening news. Only talked about it for 20 seconds and it was in the middle of a piece about thre freshman reps.
NPR covered the gist of it last night for about 10 minutes, speaking with a few Democrat and Republican politicians about their opinions on the subject. Sounds like a good change with some bipartisan support.
Let’s just hope it doesn’t go the way of the Presidential line-item veto.
All but nominations are reasonable steps. Filibuster is there to protect general population from extremism of either party in power, be it from extreme legislation or from extreme appointees. It is hard to filibuster truly centrist legislation or appointee and those who would would pay dearly in elections. It is easy to filibuster extreme legislation and nominations – as practice proves, you win elections based on it.
“Right to Amend.” -sigh-
I know I’m a simpleton and don’t understand the political process but, dammit, if you’re going to pass a law, it should be written correctly and not need amendments. If it’s not written well, vote it down and let them take another stab at it in the future.
Too many amendments are attaching a pet project to a bill that is sure to get passed. Or pure pork. We need pure laws that are easy to understand.
Thou shalt not steal. That’s pretty easy to understand. But if it’s amended with: a) thou shalt not plant a garden containing beets in an artifically improved soil within 150 feet of an active interstate highway unless all planting is done between the hours of 2 and 4 am under the light of a full moon except …
That’s just nonsense and has no bearing on the intent of the bill up for vote.
Not worth covering. Most sheeple think filibuster is a bad case of indigestion.
What they should cover is the ‘Pukes recently voted to raise taxes on the middle class because they could not get a special tax break for that 1% population of millionaires and billionaires.
Animby, if you rewrite the bill, you are amending it.
Better to do it on the floor, and let all Senators introduce amendments, then to send it back to Committee.
I like the bill. And if it passes without Republican support, then it means the Republicans will have precedent for rewriting the rules and eliminate the filibuster entirely wen they have control of the chamber.
What’s surprising is why Democrats would introduce a bill that weakens their power, even in this congress where they have the majority. IN the last Congress, Harry Reid would just introduce a bunch of junk amendments, leaving no room for the Republicans to have their own amendments, and filed for cloture before debate even started, forcing Republicans into a filibuster.
Repukes in the House are READING THE CONSTITUTION ALOUD !!! Thought they would have done that before coming to Washington, but the NOT A WITCH in Delaware, proved me wrong !!! So, I guess they ought to get ELMO to read it to them so they might have a chance of understanding it – ESPECIALLY THE BILL OF RIGHTS !!! (FAT CHANCE!!!)
111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined: $10,429 Per Person in U.S. (every man, woman, child): http://tinyurl.com/24tanqp
Pelosi: Repealing Obamacare Would Do ‘Very Serious Violence to the National Debt’: http://tinyurl.com/27svehs
#11, in the last Congress when asked why a bill was constitutional, the Dem speaker said ‘are you serious!’
Or if you prefer, ARE YOU SERIOUS?
9, Dallas,
Obama beat them to it by raising excise taxes which hurt the poor and middle class even though he promised during his campaign to not raise taxes on them. But the mainstream media didn’t cover that, now did they? Go figure.
#15
+ Happy you don’t dispute my point.
– Disappointed that you throw out the usual ‘neener, neener…but did you see this other shit..”
It’s not being covered by the corporate media because if it passed, it would severely limit the ability of the R’s to obstruct each and every thing the D’s try to do.
Bad for R’s, corp media doesn’t cover it.
16, Dallas,
There wasn’t anything to dispute. Liberals continually whine that people who make more money should pay a disproportionate additional amount in income taxes. Tax rates, Tax cut %, and refunds should all be flat regardless of income. Rather than try to redistribute wealth and start class warfare, why don’t you guys try to be fair about the way in which taxes should be applied / cut?
As for your Chosen One raising taxes on the poor and middle class, my only point was to try using a mirror before you start using a telescope when you lay blame.
Excluding the poor, why can’t everyone pay the same flat tax rate (if you must have an income tax)? Because you libs get a case of penis envy and are too preoccupied with what other people make instead of minding your own business.
Guyver…In the U.S., an overwhelming majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation.
19, Olo Baggins of Bywater,
81% of 264 (out of an original 1,000) with a 2.5 to 1 bias in favor of Democrat Economists isn’t what I call an “overwhelming majority of economists”.
“We have not been able to review the exact language we will be reading today.”
Congressman objecting to reading of the Constitution
Disclaimer…
I do not understand what a filibuster is (or care, because I am from UK), but ….
#19 said
“81% of economists support progressive taxation” ??? WTF!
Those are the same people who got us into the sh!t we are in now!
Guyver–good to see you posting again. Obviously, you didn’t learn anything while away though.
You want a flat tax? Fine: tax disposable income on that basis.
See?
Its all definitional.
Guyver–taxing disposable income has much the same effect as a consumption tax.
YOU KNOW–no one should/does “like” taxes, its just that taxes are necessary in order for society to work. As the USA is demonstrating, when the tax policies are out of whack-society doesn’t work.
The rich get taxed disproportionately because they have the money. Some say they also benefit disproportionately from society and really, really should therefore pay more. What do you think of that?
But bottom line: our elected leaders are supposed to have a good idea of what kind of society the people want and their job is to define a tax code to get us there with all other relevant and legal factors applicable being considered. simple in concept, impossible with the fraud,corruption,greed, self dealing that goes on as a matter of course.
No matter how sufficient funds are raised, or even if they aren’t, people are going to complain. Usually complain without any alternative.
I tend to favor a simpler, flatter, consumption oriented tax scheme with as little social engineering as possible. Oh–and lots of enforcement to keep the honest people out of jail.
>> chuck said, on January 6th, 2011 at 8:21 am
>> If the Republicans ever get 51 seats in the Senate then you can bet there will be coverage.
Won’t bother me a bit.
I welcome Democrats having to defend why they are preventing an up-down-vote.
And that’s the rub… GOP senators prevented over 200 up-down-votes without bothering to tell Americans why.
Over 200 up-down votes prevented? Wow! And how many of those were they free to debate? How many were they free to provide amendments?
If the majority is willing to give the minority power, they will have more of a case to make that the minority is being obstructionist.
#17 Your image of Democrats running scared Republicans to ground is too silly, if only it were true. With a large majority in the House, the GOP can half-pass any bill they want.
The losers here, and always, are the dems. How hard is it going to be buy off four indie/dem Senators? Not hard at all, they are a quivery bunch.
This is about pushing the GOP agenda to Obama’s desk. I’m betting he doesn’t have the nuts to use the veto in reply.
He will get a steady stream of bills to sign, proving that he is a transformative leader. All the of these bills will be well named and have broad industry/media support.
Out of the dirty end of the GOP machine(good luck finding a clean end) will spring high-res photos of John Boehner actually wiping the House floor with Obama’s face.
Dem voters, accustomed to their leaders walking sideways into the 21st century, are going to decide to grab a pizza and stay home.
“All the of these bills will be well named” /// Ha, ha. What a retard.
“…provided the amendments are germane and have been filed in a timely manner.”
Oh, how very generous – the majority will allow amendments, as long as they are germane. And the the majority leader will, of course, decide what is germane.
#19 I’ll address your points even though it’s another red herring.
* Yes, those who make more money should pay a disproportionate amount. That’s because they have a disproportionate amount of the wealth. You see, tax is applied to wealth, not people. Also, it’s our tax system so if you don;t like it, move to China.
* “should all be flat ..blah blah”. I agree it should be flat, but it’s not. I make more than 97% of the American sheeple. I’d like it too. Class warfare? We already have it – its called the have’s and have nots ‘skirmish”. A perfect recipe for all out war. Is that what you want? Do you realize that a widening gap in the distribution of wealth leads to a government like Venezuela? Is that what you want, comrade?
* As for your Chosen One raising taxes, blah. ..Actually you missed the point because you were thinking of saying something else. Classic sheeple. It was the Repuke’s raising taxes on the middle class, not the chosen one.
* Excluding the poor, why can’t everyone pay the same flat tax rate…. Here you go again. Stop fantasizing.Stop doing heroin. We do not have a flat tax system.