Question: Wouldn't the stimulus require 60 votes, filibuster aside?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Don't all bills with spending that doesn't specify how its paid for require 60 votes in the senate? (Senate rule added a while back)

I assume the stimulus would qualify.

But I don't know the particulars.

[Uzybone]

1. I have read that in many places (including the NYTimes)

can a fine DUer clear that up? Basically Ive read that it takes 60 votes (by rule) to pass any legislation that would increase the budget deficit.

[Mass]

2. It did. They actually waived the CBA (which itself requires 60 votes) then voted the bill.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00060 (vote needed to pass a bill that does not say how it is paid).

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00061

[sundancekid]

3. it began as the Byrd Rule many years ago ... interesting history to it, if you want to follow it

[Yes We Did]

4. NO! It does NOT.

The 60 is to get past the filibuster.

Which is why I say do the damn bill right and MAKE them filibuster it. Let's see them filibuster a stimulus package when we are losing over a half million jobs a month.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. see reply #2

[Yes We Did]

6. I did... However

A simple majority of Senators voting can pass a bill. If every single Senator votes, this means 51 votes out of 100 votes cast are needed for a bill to pass in the US Senate.

However, as you know, a minority of Senators can filibuster a bill, debating the bill forever. The Senate rules allow debate without end. This prevents the Senate from performing any other business so long as the bill is being filibustered. Some Filibuster techniques include reading the entire works of Shakespeare, or introducing hundreds of completely unrelated Amendments to the bill.

To end a filibuster, as you also know, 60 Senators must vote to agree to end the debate. Since January 2007, Republicans have filibustered more bills than ever before in the US Senate history. This has prevented the US Senate from performing normal business because the minority Republican Party prevents bills from getting a simple up-or-down vote.

So, in today's environment, it actually takes 60 votes to allow a bill to move forward so that a simple majority vote can take place, even though it only requires 51.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. The point is that this particular bill would require 60 even if cloture was agreed to

Usually you get 60 to reach cloture, then 51 is enough for the bill itself.

For this bill, because of its nature, we needed 60 to pass the bill itself regardless of how cloture was reached.

[Yes We Did]

9. It's so stupid.

Why does it seem like the only time we need 60 is when it's something WE want to pass?

[harun]

8. Pathetic we don't know the answer to this.

[Yes We Did]

11. "We're" not supposed to.

That's how "They" like it.

Fuck Them...

And While I'm At It...

[DCBob]

10. No filibusters after conference but still need 60 votes to wave fed deficit rules of the Budget Act.

"According to Senate rules, a bill that has emerged from a joint conference cannot be filibustered and could be passed with a simple majority. A 60-vote majority, however, may still be needed to waive provisions of the Budget Act, as required by Senate rules when a pending bill raises the federal deficit."

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/8099

That's why they still need to keep the three Rs on board.

[Yes We Did]

12. Is that why the money for Iraq has always been "special funding"

[DCBob]

14. Probably -- but even so the Dems were not keen on filibustering money for the soldiers.

Political suicide and simply not good.

[Yes We Did]

16. Well... Then... Rework it as "Emergency Spending"

And hey... it actually is.

[Better Believe It]

13. Without a filibuster you need Senate 51 votes to pass legislation and

you can end filibusters with 51 votes using the so-called nuclear option that the Republicans threatened Democrats with in 2005.

If the Republicans actually organize a Senate floor filibuster on this or any future legislation the Democrats have the following options.

1. Surrender to the filibuster and withdraw the legislation.

2. Agree to Republican demands and weaken legislation to the point of being ineffective.

3. Let the Republicans filibuster until the public tires of Republican obstructionism and 60 Senators finally agree to end debate and proceed with an up and down vote for new legislation.

4. Use the so-called "nuclear option" in which the Senate will simply change the rules and require 51 votes to pass legislation to bypass any Republican filibuster.

So what really is the "nuclear option" which scared the crap out of Democratic Senators in 2005? Much good has been accomplished with partisanship.

-----------------------------

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

[DCBob]

15. The filibuster has already been defeated. They cannot filibuster a bill coming out of conference..

The issue now relates to federal deficit provisions of the Budget Act -- see above post.

[leftynyc]

17. I thought so but for a different reason

I thought I read that anything that raises the federal deficit needs a 3/5 vote.

[DCBob]

18. Baucus: "The votes are there for passage" -- House vote Thurs and Senate on Friday..

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate and House of Representatives negotiators have the votes to approve a $789 billion economic stimulus compromise, Democratic Senator Max Baucus told reporters on Wednesday. "The votes are there for passage," he told reporters during a lunch break. He said that the negotiators were "very close" to wrapping up and were doing some minor tinkering. He said it was very possible that the House would vote on Thursday on the compromise and the Senate would follow on Friday, ahead of President Barack Obama's stated goal of getting the measure completed this weekend.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE51A63C20090211

[Recursion]

19. The Senate is weird

There currently is such a rule, but my understanding is it just takes a simple majority to undo that rule (this was known a few years ago as the "nuclear option").