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.
#29 Name withheld to protect Bobbo, oops.;)
If I was stupid I would be offended by being called a retard. Turns out I’m not offended, you retard.
How does it work for you?
Anyway, I am always happy to be challenged. I am (not) surprised that you’ve missed this tactical development in the political process.
It is described here, by some decidedly non-retarded academic types: http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=166509
In Washington State, we have a Single Subject requirement in the Constitution. Each Bill in the Legislature must be limited to a single subject and cannot be a catch-all to modify different areas of the law. This makes our legislation a lot easier to read and understand and eliminates a lot of back-door laws.
‘and have been filed in a timely manner’?
Normally they allow amendments on the floor.
#32–Chris==was that you? Very surprising.
No, I will not go off and read some link. YOU read and summarize the link with the meaning that you took from it, with the argument you make. Posting the link is good and fine, respectful-giving the name of your source, but you posted your own ideas/argument? So, suck it up and think for yourself.
Over time, you’ll get used to it and perhaps even better.
What part of what a bill is named appeals to you? It is retarded “label” hanging for the sheeple. Truly irresponsible showing great disrespect to anything worthy other than manipulation of the masses.
Are you for substance, or for means to an end in a corrupt system?
and the same with “labels.”
Actually, the link Chris gives at #32 is an excellent read.
Chris has the import of the link bass ackwards, but most readers will perceive that labels should not influence one’s understanding of the true nature of the thing under discussion. Or perhaps it is contextually oreinted and “well labeled” these Tea Party bills would be, if corruption is your goal, and isn’t that certainly the case?
Silly me.
The media doesn’t report these things because they realize the the general populace suffers from shrinking brains due to Global Warming(TM).
If you don’t have inequal outcomes, you don’t have freedom.
#35
You tried to hit me in way that ended up showing I know something that you don’t.
Congratulations, well done.
I don’t think it is a GOOD thing that simplistic gimmicks are used to subvert the democratic process. I can tell you that such things DO exist.
How things actually work is not only important, it can often be quite interesting. I think you can learn a lot about a society by from the dominant scams.
“All the of these bills will be well named” /// Ha, ha. What a retard.
>> MikeN said, on January 6th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
>> How many were they free to provide amendments?
The Boehner is going to propose a repeal of healthcare reform without allowing any amendments.
If you’re not a hypocrite, I expect you to condemn this effort to repeal healtcare reform in no uncertain terms.
BTW, the Dems allows HUNDREDS of amendments and endless debate in healthcare reform alone. How did you miss that?
>> MikeN said, on January 6th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
>> 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.
What a bizarre standard.
The real standard is… how many bills did the minority obstruct?
Answer: the GOP broke all records, by a wide margin.
Greg Allan==there is every reason in the world to offer single issue no amendment bills. In fact, that is the expected result when a simple majority rules. The House responds to hot headed “of the moment” low information voters. This repeal of the well labeled “jobs bill destroying Obama Healthcare Bill” perfectly matches the Tea Party goal and objective. It will also highlight those in the Senate who will be Puke targets in 2012.
Its perfect for its purpose.
Silly to think otherwise.
bobbo,
I used to loudly advocate for single issue bills, so I’m sympathetic to what you say.
But now I wonder if it’s practical in a country the size of the US.
Wouldn’t there be hundreds of thousands of individual bills if they did this? Each one with their own debate and amendments? Is this practically possible?
#23 He did say except for the poor. If they can live off that amount, you can too. It’s pretty simple really, about 50% of Americans no longer pay Fed. taxes.
Greg Allan==ha, ha. I hadn’t thought of that issue. Is your characterization accurate? That many “discrete” issues–even if each pork item would be pressured off the menu?
There is always a way. Batch approval of individual bills? If the work load is really that numerous and diverse, maybe Congress could only focus on the more important issues? If bills were single issue, would the need for amendments be reduced? Who knows. Maybe this would cause a shift to the committee structure having more responsibility and respect?
Hey!==maybe there are pro’s and con’s to every approach taken? We could look to those states that have single issue voting. It must work in its own fashion, just as voting on 2000 page unread bills work in their fashion?
You call a filibuster? American filibusters rarely go over two days. In Canada, the Ontario Legislature had a filibuster last nine days.
Yes, Canadians are better than you.
http://netrootsmass.net/selise/senate-filibuster-reference-list/
Of more than 400 filed amendments on health care, less than 30 came up for a vote, and only 2 were substantial. Harry Reid used the process called ‘filling the tree’ to preempt Republican amendments, as well as filing cloture motions when there was no filibuster. In addition, amendments required 60 votes to pass.
The Majority Leader has used his powers to block Republican input on legislation. The Majority Leader is always the first to be recognized on the Senate floor, and he can use that power to offer a series of Democrat amendments to pending legislation in a manner that prevents Republicans from offering any of their ideas. This is called “filling the tree.” According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Majority Leader Reid has employed this tactic a record 44 times.[3] He has used it to block minority input into legislation three times more often than the previous Majority Leader, and more than the past six Majority Leaders combined.[4]
Extensive use of filibusters is a proper response to such tactics.
>The Boehner is going to propose a repeal of >healthcare reform without allowing any amendments.
>If you’re not a hypocrite, I expect you to condemn >this effort to repeal healtcare reform in no >uncertain terms.
Ha ha ha. So the Democrats run roughshod over procedures to pass an unconstitutional bill, and when repeal is tried, then they claim the minority should be given power? I suppose you will object to filibusters of judges nominated by a president who filibustered judges?
CBS News covered this tonight. Happened to notice it while out to eat with my family.
Stop trying to be JCD and AC wrapped up into one idiotic bundle.
#46
I agree about Canadians, by the way.
I might be wrong, but I don’t think the GOP has actually filibustered during the first 2 years of Obama’s term. The mere threat had the Democrats on the run.
Unsurprisingly, I would play it the opposite way. Force some idiot to read the founding documents until his voice goes out, and then repeat until there are none left.
Then a prez with nuts could say: “Here is a photo array of the idiots halting the national business. There they go, reading historical documents(probably for the first time) at a time of peril.”
At the very least it would ruin some weekends.
Re flat tax…the tax structure in the USA is, in part, designed to prevent the richest elite from becoming a permanent ruling class. That’s precisely the reason for an estate tax. Having seen the results of such a class in England, the founding fathers worried about this quite a bit, at least some of them did. We’re headed that direction again, and in England it didn’t end well.
The rich elite pundits (specifically Rush) have spun this into a “populist” argument about jobs and a bunch of other crap. …because it affects Rush personally and he has the power to make others carry his water. He’s brilliant in that way. (suckers…)
Re “germane” amendments…one benefit is to prevent poison pill amendments, such as the GOP attempted to add to the original First Responders bill. Both parties do this all the time, but that’s the best example I can think of.
25, Bobbo,
So you say.
I agree taxes are a “necessary evil” for necessary things. The problem lies in liberals often times want to make entitlement programs a necessity when they clearly are not.
And is it fair to tax someone disproportionately because they have exercised their pursuit of happiness within the laws better than others? Nope.
Penis envy is never a good reason to use government to extort things out of someone. Those same people probably don’t live within their means and don’t have much for a savings.
“In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other.” [Voltaire]
Owning a house is not an entitlement. Eating steak and caviar is not an entitlement. Buying a car every 4 years is not an entitlement. Unrestrained consumption by those people is probably the root cause of their problems rather than the “rich” guy who learned to grow his money better than those who squandered it.
I agree. Many of those politicians buy votes by promising entitlements as a right / necessity to the masses. We need to focus on as-required instead of trying to make everything “free”. IMHO, the public education system is the root cause for why the masses are ignorant enough to buy into those promises.
“Do we really think that a government-dominated education is going to produce citizens capable of dominating their government, as the education of a truly vigilant self-governing people requires?” [Alan Keyes]
For the most part I agree with that last comment except for the social-engineering part. Government should not be doing any social engineering (or what others call justice). The ONLY form of social engineering I would prefer is a Meritocracy. Anything other than that won’t be a fairer way to reward the best and brightest in this country.
31, Dallas,
Penis envy is not a valid reason to be unfair. You should tax people on their consumption and not their productivity / accumulation of wealth.
I have no intentions on going to a Communist country. I fully intend to exercise my right to vote to get as many liberals out of office as possible. Anyone but a liberal.
Focus on individual consumption rather than income. It’s not a hard system to figure out. You should be asking yourself why politicians and lobbyists abhor the fair tax system and want to keep the current system going on as long as possible.
My point was on fairness. Liberals abhor fairness because they want equal outcome. This is a big reason why they all pretty much have penis envy.
51, Olo Baggins of Bywater,
In theory. Problem is it affects many small business owners as well. This approach stunts economic growth, reduces potential full-time employment, and raises the costs of goods and services.
We need to stop taxing productivity / income and simply go to a consumption-based tax system.
The founding fathers were around for the sixteenth amendment? Wow!
Taxing people’s productivity and income is a populist issue. If you must have an income tax system, then the rate should be flat for everyone except the poor.
So what? Are you saying it doesn’t affect anyone else outside the “elite” class?
#31 You say you are focused on fairness, and other peoples’ perceptions of your genitals, but you’re actually just exchanging one type of free rider for another.
The benefits of living in an advanced society do not center on the ability to buy consumer goods. Pick any third world place that gets on the news mostly for how much it sucks. I’ll bet you anything that you could find a newish Mercedes, computer, phone, and nice clothes in a few hours of minimal effort. Having that stuff will make you feel better, but it doesn’t magically transport you to the US.
People should be paying taxes out of their income because they are benefiting while they earn it. The “value added” isn’t contained in the products you buy. It is added to your quality of life.
If you remove the government from having an active role in policing the market I can tell you exactly what happens: somebody else shows up and does the same thing for a higher cost.
As a practical matter, say we did get a VAT tax. Would that apply to all purchases, especially investments? Or would consumption only be defined as stuff that hits poorer people disproportionally?
Sorry, Dallas, wrong delivery. I was speaking to #53-#54 and incorrectly addressed my post to you.
55, Chris,
People can control the manner in which they consume and thus can control the manner in which government extorts money from them. In other words, the people can vote with their wallets much to the dismay of politicians and lobbyists.
People have no control over how the government singles out their income bracket because they make more money / got promoted. There’s nothing fair about taxing someone at a higher % tax rate for no other reason than because they’re becoming more financially successful.
Taxing people’s consumption habits is most fair but as I said before lobbyists and politicians won’t go for that because too much power is put in the hands of the people.
A consumption tax (aka the Fair Tax) would be blind to specific items purchased. A 20% fair tax on a pack of ramen noodles would be proportionately the same as a 20% fair tax at a five-star restaurant.
Penalizing someone because they learned to grow their money and not squander is penis envy.
Who said anything about removing the government from playing an active role? You think the government is out of the loop under a Fair Tax system?
I’m not talking about a VAT. VAT taxes on the difference between the cost to the merchant versus the cost to the consumer. I never suggested that.
If you get away from taxing people’s incomes and productivity, you’d see hidden taxes removed from goods and services. If you apply the Fair Tax, it would hit EVERYONE in the same way. That is fair.
Give EVERYONE (tax payers and the poor) a monthly pre-bate to cover the basic necessities of life per geographic area and family size. Once you burn through that, it’s all on you as per your lifestyle.
The only thing that would upset liberals at this point would be rich people who choose to live a frugal lifestyle (even though it’s none of anyone’s business). Or if poor people insist on consuming steak and caviar even though they cannot afford it.
Guyver==I couldn’t agree more. I’m even gonna start with a high five. xxxxx . There ya go!
Yes, people choosing their own level of consumption in order to keep government in line: BRILLIANT!!!!!!!
People “controlling the manner in which they consume.” My, my, my. Couldn’t think of a more empowering way to express the notion=====but, what of the simply vendor who wants to sell his 200 foot yatch, helicopter included, without the burden of a luxury tax? Surely any such consumption tax is limiting the freedom of buyers and sellers? You are only thinking of the freedom to purchase, what of the freedom to sell?
I think you are being very short sighted. OBVIOUSLY consumption taxes are wrong because they prevent all people from buying yatches as they may choose to do?
YOU KNOW, the more I think about it, there is something UNAMERICAN about people too poor to pay their fair share of taxes. They are human leaches and don’t deserve the liberty that only successful people enjoy. Screw them I say, maybe they will learn that important lesson and pass it along to their kiddies so their kiddies will appreciate what the Super Rich have given them thru the PURE kindness of good Christian charity. That way, they won’t grow up thinking America gave them anything and they will know they have to do everything on their own or thru the kindness of the Super Rich. America: land of the kiss up the asses of your betters. It will even fit on that statue.
Ain’t it great to be an American where your individual effort is rewarded?
I think so. I’ve got mine, c’mon poor people, stop being lazy and work for it.
59, Bobbo,
So now you’ve demonstrated a potential need of the IRS if we switched to a Fair Tax system. To change names on the title to said items would incur a consumption tax.
I’m sure you can try to find some way to insist this would still be unfair.
How so?
I never said the poor should pay. In fact, I excluded them more than once on earlier posts.
Yup! Until the liberals get a case of penis envy.
As opposed to what? Government social engineering by redistribution of wealth? BRILLIANT! What a way to improve our economy! LOL. Regardless, sometimes it’s more of a matter of working smarter not harder. If you want to live in that big house, own a new luxury car, eat steak and caviar anytime you want you most certainly need to work for it. But I get it. You liberals believe everyone should be entitled to such things without working for it.
Guyver==that is a complete DODGE you offer up there: “I’m only following the constitution.”
Well, I got news for you bucko–the constitution allows for the Fed to make laws. Why aren’t you supporting all the laws that apply?
You pick and choose your BS like the undigested corn in a load.
Yes–“the law” including the law of taxation and the law of programs all pursuant to the majority will of the public for: “the general welfare” aka “society.”
The warp and weave of a tightly integrated society does not well suffer the thread pulling “taxation is theft” mindset of short sighted LIEberTARDS. Once you admit the “general welfare” purpose of society, arguing as you do is only a sophisticated “I’ve got mine-screw you.”
Speak against the specific excesses, the fraud, the corruption. Arguing the “philosophy” make you a fool. Yes, it makes you sound just like me: a REAL republican.
Foolish Hooman. Wise up.
#58
Putting a national 20% point-of-purchase tax on all goods is basically a VAT tax. You can call it something else, but it is the same idea.
I am confused how personal income taxes could possibly cause a hidden tax or price increase in goods and services.
Most businesses pay their employees a salary. Whether those monies are taxed or untaxed is unimportant to the the business, it isn’t their money anymore so why would they care?
What you’re really after is a way to defer tax collection until the absolute last second. That ignores that products you buy don’t magically appear.
They are made by some operation in a physical place. The people that run this operation need regular energy, water, public safety, sanitation, communications, and links to transportation networks. Even if those services are provisioned by private groups the government still has to have some people out there checking that stuff is done right. That costs money.
There would be a bunch of strange effects too. Under your system the government wouldn’t make any tax revenues off of exports. Since the products are being consumed elsewhere they don’t exist for taxing purposes. So an export producing factory pays no taxes. Nice to be one of those, I guess. On the other hand, imports would bring tax revenue for products created in another country.
These exchanges of revenues would also bring a much harder edge to international trade disputes.
Also, I think this would balloon costs in a severe way. Think of the production chains that make stuff, many hands can be involved. Adding 20% to the prices of the input at each step would be silly.
I’m guessing that you’d totally forgo taxes on the materials and energy consumption of a factory, so that only the end-user is paying tax. That would mean that for some purchases, ones not intended personal use, would be tax exempt.
This doesn’t look fair OR simple. It would unworkable in practice because it would be easy to game the system.
Here is what I would do. Get an LLC charter and declare my kitchen to be a restaurant. I would scrupulously charge myself 5 cents per meal, and happy kick up a shiny penny for Uncle Sam.
Sounds “fair” to me! 🙂