Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Democrats Should Just Say No To Budget Filibusters

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:27 PM
Original message
Democrats Should Just Say No To Budget Filibusters
After we get through this season of passing necessary emergency legislation (in order to yank the American economy back from the cliff Bush led us to), Congress is going to have to turn its attention to the federal budget. They didn't pass one last year, and this year's budget is right around the corner as well. But a little-known rule in the Senate may dramatically change the balance of power between the parties during this process. It's called "reconciliation," and it's a magic bullet to slay Republican opposition to passing a budget with President Obama's priorities and agenda intact.

Because (are you sitting down?) budgetary bills that go through the reconciliation process cannot be filibustered in the Senate.

Which means both Obama and the Democrats in Congress may be able to totally ignore the congressional Republicans of both houses -- since these Republicans will be utterly powerless and utterly irrelevant to the discussion. The ramifications are enormous.

The process itself is part of the arcane set of rules the Senate runs by. From Wikipedia, here's a quick overview:

To trigger the reconciliation process, Congress passes a concurrent resolution on the budget instructing one or more committees to report changes in law affecting the budget by a certain date. If the budget instructs more than one committee, then those committees send their recommendations to the Budget Committee of their House, and the Budget Committee packages the recommendations into a single omnibus bill. In the Senate, the reconciliation bill then gets only 20 hours of debate, and amendments are limited. Because reconciliation limits debate and amendment, the process empowers the majority party.

Until 1996, reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction, but in 1996 the Senate adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would worsen the deficit. Under the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress has used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts. Senate Republicans have repeatedly, though unsuccessfully, tried to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.


It's a bit tricky, and there are a lot of i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed to qualify (including something known as the Byrd Rule), but this looks like a good way to get a budget passed without having to worry about getting 60 votes for it in the Senate.

<snip>

One possible flaw in this scenario, however, is that it requires Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to show some backbone. This may be beyond his abilities, from what we've seen so far. Reid would have to play some serious hardball by denying Republicans the chance to filibuster, and while I remain ever-hopeful that Reid will eventually stand up for his party, it is a weak link in the scheme, I have to admit.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/democrats-should-just-say_b_168073.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. it requires Harry Reid to show some backbone
So much for THAT idea.........

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. The only way to get family planning funding through
which one suspects Reid isn't personally all that interested in, even though the majority of Democrats (and rational Americans) are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. The key, I think, is to make Harry Reid more afraid of Obama than he is of the Rethugs.
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 05:37 PM by backscatter712
Page Rahm Emanuel, and remind him to bring a dead fish...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Leave the fish, bring the cannolis...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. 'bone' and 'reid'?
there is no evidence for any such thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC