The tax cuts sunset at the beginning of 2013. That’s already written into the law. Pretty much nobody in power in either party thinks that just letting taxes go up on everybody is a good idea. Of course, people always want their taxes to be cut, and therefore politicians always like to cut taxes, but given the still-sluggish state of the economy, there is a broad consensus that (notwithstanding deficits), keeping taxes low is in fact good policy and not just good politics.
So, everybody’s taxes are higher as of the beginning of 2013. Nobody has to do anything to raise taxes on the rich, and on everybody else. That tax increase (that is, the expiration of the lower taxe rates) is a done deal. President Obama and the Democrats want to cut taxes for 98% of the population. In fact, the (Democratic-controlled) Senate has already passed legislation to do this, and the President has called on the (Republican-controlled) House to pass the Senate’s bill so he can sign it and cut taxes for 98% of Americans.
I’d support that…knowing that the GOP will have the majority again one of these days and the Democrats will have to then live with this.
The prevailing mood here appears to hint, without saying outright, that the best rule would be that Democrats in the minority should be able to halt legislation because their ideas are good, and Democrats in the majority should likewise be able to move forward generally unimpeded with legislation for the same reason.
That’s not what I believe. As I’ve said before, if the Republicans get a majority of the Senate, a majority of the House, and the Presidency, then they should get to enact their agenda to the extent it’s consistent with the Constitution itself (that is, they can’t set up a state church or outlaw non-Republican speech or just have all Democrats rounded up and shot anything like that). That’s the way the Constitution is written, and it’s by no means easy to get to that point. Especially since (because we have 536 separate elections to Congress and the White House), individual Senators and Congressmen are not terribly beholden to party discipline and may well not vote for everything “their” party proposes, and Presidents don’t always automatically agree with everything Congress says just because they all have the same letter (“D” or “R”) after their names; therefore, even without the filibuster, a majority which can actually pass potentially controversial legislation will likely need to consist of more than 50 Senators plus the Vice President and 218 Representatives all of whom are "R"s or all of whom are "D"s.
I’m sure the Republicans would, if they controlled all three elected arms of the federatl government, pass laws I’d disagree with. Perhaps the Republicans would enact really bad or stupid legislation in that case. And if the American people decide they don’t like the results (“But I like Grandma! Why do we have to put her out on an ice floe?!?”) then the American people should refrain from giving the Republicans control of the entire lawmaking apparatus of the government of the United States.
Everybody’s taxes are going up. Do you think we should cut taxes on 98% of the American people or not?
I, for one, don’t think we should have Republican only rules. I’m sure most people here would agree with that.
So why suggest that it’s the secret wish of the people in the thread?
The Republicans have overused the filibuster and other stalling tactics, to such an extent that there is little option but to make rules that deal with them. Until the Tea Party got into seats of power such things weren’t necessary.
Agreed. I don’t see that anyone is suggesting that.
Just to be clear, and this probably doesn’t affect your feelings on the matter, the TP isn’t “in power”, although they are are a force in the House. In the Senate, they have only succeeded in giving more seats to the Dems because they forced viable candidates out in the primaries. The TP is not a significant force in the Senate.
I would say this is consistent with your inability to conceive of a situation in which other people are motivated by responding to a change in facts rather than driven by their own partisanship.
Do you deny that the fillibuster has been used differently over the last 4 years than the rest of the history of the country? If not, isn’t it possible that people wish to change the rules as a result in these changes of usage rather than pure partisanship?
Both sides have this very real fear. One motivator for the Dems is that regardless of what they do, the Republicans might very well reform the filibuster anyway if they achieve majority control of the Senate.
As it happens, my first choice would be a Parliamentary system: parties tend to automatically moderate when they have unambiguous electoral accountability. It’s logically conceivable that moves towards that position could be worse than either of the two extremes. But I’m guessing not.
Also: when I advocate filibuster reform, there’s also the matter of reforming Presidential appointments. Jon Kyle blocked 6 mid-level appointees to the Treasury department for reasons unrelated to their opinions or policies. He said he did so because he wanted to pressure the Obama administration to issue regulations on internet gambling before their June 2010 plan. He later caved, but his position was preposterous and undermines the commonwealth. I wouldn’t want Democrats pulling that on Republican Presidencies either - unless Republicans succeed in blocking these needed reforms. In which case payback becomes a moral imperative.
Meh. Before the start of the 111th congress I knew the filibuster would be abused. They never were proactive and changed the rules ahead of time when it would’ve mattered (when the dems had 60 senators). They didn’t change the rules in the 112th congress either.
Reid is either incompetent or lying, I don’t know which. If he changes the rules now, he is incompetent because it took him years to figure out this was needed. If he was competent he would’ve done this January 21st 2009. Had they done that we would have a public option, cap and trade, more regulations against Citizens united, the DREAM act, etc. All those laws got 51-59 senators.
I’m going with lying. Dem senators said the same thing about the 112th congress and they did nothing.
The Tea Party is the reason that the Senate is fixated on obstructing everything it can. The TP crazies are in the house (generally), but the Senators are afraid of them, especially McConnell.
Awkward reality: meaningful curbs on CO2 will increase the price of energy, which will hit the middle class. If we do it correctly, big guv could receive a boatload of revenue. Substituting taxes on pollution for taxes on labor would be good thing. Unfortunately a deal on global warming is unlikely, regardless of how the Wall Street Journal pretends to favor taxes on consumption.
Oh and also. When you drop, say, the lowest bracket from 20 to 15 percent, those at the top benefit as well. That’s the way income tax tables work: you are taxed first on income between $16,750 and $68,000, say, then at a higher rate on income between $68,000 and $137,300 or whatever. So if you cut the lower tax bracket, somebody earning $100,000 will still receive a monetary benefit greater than somebody earning $50,000 even if the higher bracket isn’t touched. So, really, this isn’t a case of eating the rich: it’s a matter of confusing people with insufficient familiarity with tax law.
Wesley Clarke :“Reid is either incompetent or lying…”
“Incompetent”, but not. He came out in favor of filibuster reform over a year ago IIRC. It’s not clear to me that he had the votes to push it through earlier anyway: they had not experienced the sorts of things subsequently done by Republicans before. For example, some Senators voted against bills that they had sponsored[sup]1[/sup] , solely to join a unified front against Obama. I say that if they don’t want to do their legislative job that they should switch to another occupation.
[sup]1[/sup] Specifically Republicans Sam Brownback of Kansas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and John McCain of Arizona.
Because the Dems are just part of the dog and pony show in Washington. Their JOB is to lose. The filibuster is an excellent screen to hide behind. The surprising part is that Reed is talking about ending filibusters at all. But reading some of the other comments, perhaps it’s because that doing so will not prevent Republicans from logjamming the Senate.