…or maybe he’s using the cover of Sinema?
The filibuster made some sense when both parties wanted to govern. One of them does not and never will again. So we can choose between Republicans blocking every single thing that Democrats want to accomplish or taking their weapon away and allowing the Senate to work. It’s nuts that bills that would have gotten 80+ votes never got to the table when McTurtle ran the Senate. We need to find a balance between letting the majority run roughshod and letting the minority block each and every piece of legislation.
At this point, the “balance” is that the Dems have people in their party who will actually say “No” to their own leadership. While it would be nice if we didn’t have to rely on that, we do have it, at least for now.
The thing is, “letting the minority block each and every piece of legislation” is a real problem that is really happening now, and has been happening for years. I think it’s worth the risk of some theoretical problem somewhere down the road, if it lets us fix a real problem today. If the Dems go mad sometime in the future, well, we’ll burn that bridge when we get to it.
Dems tried reaching across the aisle with Obama and damn near made him a one term president.
Biden has the right approach: You’re welcome to get on the train and even help steer it down the track, or I can steam roller you. Pick your poison.
I agree with the earlier point. Republicans had effectively eliminated the filibuster when they were in power. And seeing as how a buncha Pub congress critters tried to help throw the election, don’t think voters should worry about what they might do to the filibuster down the road. We’ve already seen what Republicans will do when in power.
I am certainly no fan of Congressional Republicans, but I am a fan of accuracy.
Could you please provide an example of Republicans ignoring rules to pass a bill that Democrats would have filibustered?
They certainly ignored bills that they should have voted on, and ignored nominees they should have acted on. They did not call witnesses at a trial. The former president had executive orders that should not have been enacted, and ignored legal subpoenas and other requests. But passing bills by ignoring rules? I do not recall such an event.
The tax cut bill, which they passed under the reconciliation process. Which requires that the bill be one which would reduce the deficit. The only way the tax cut bill was going to reduce the deficit was by expiring.
I believe that the reconciliation process extends beyond deficit reduction.
Reconciliation is, essentially, a way for Congress to enact legislation on taxes, spending, and the debt limit with only a majority (51 votes, or 50 if the vice president breaks a tie) in the Senate, avoiding the threat of a filibuster.
Created by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reconciliation allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt limit legislation.
In 2007, when Democrats took control of the House and Senate, both chambers adopted rules designed to prohibit use of reconciliation for measures that increase deficits. When Republicans took the House in 2011, they replaced the House rule with one that placed no restrictions on revenue provisions that increase deficits but prohibited reconciliation instructions that would produce a net increase in mandatory spending, regardless of the reconciliation bill’s overall impact on deficits. That rule was repealed at the beginning of the new Congress in 2021.
The Senate rule against deficit-increasing reconciliation bills was repealed in 2015, as part of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2016.
Do you have any examples of Republicans bypassing a filibuster by ignoring the rules?
The Trump tax cut was passed in compliance with budget reconciliation rules, which require that the bill not add to the deficit beyond the next ten years. Which Republicans did by having the tax cut expire at the end of ten years. Presidents of both parties have used this approach on budget reconciliation bills in the past.
You may not like it, but it was by the rules as understood by both parties.
Slight nitpick, only the tax cuts on the little people expire after 10 years, the corporate tax cuts for the rich were made permanent.
So you can only pass a bill through both houses using reconciliation if it has a budget component to it? Why not authorize, say, $100 to buy postage stamps for both the Clerks of the House and the Senate, and include that in every bill that you know you’re otherwise going to have trouble overcoming a filibuster?
In my understanding, ALL the elements of the bill must be related to budget. That’s why the $15 min wage part was stripped out of the most recent one.
So he’s changed his mind since this thread was started? Any indication of what did it? If he changed it once, he can do it again…
Internal polling, likely as not.
So what can Biden, Schumer, et al do at this point, since their entire governing agenda is at stake here?
Encourage the resurgence of coal mining jobs in West Virginia?..
I guess the question is: Does Manchin really believe in bi-partisanship, or, does he believe in bi-partisanship because it gets him re-elected? Manchin isn’t stupid and he knows that the GOP isn’t interested in working with Dems on anything. So this bi-partisan bullshit is bullshit. He wants something for West Virginia and his mind can be changed if enough infrastructure money is thrown his way.
My understanding is that there can only be 3 reconciliation bills a year.
They are supposed to be related to one of those each of those, and while I’m sure they can justify just about anything under them if they wanted, they still have to sell them to Manchin and the like.
This is assuming that he is wanting what is best for WV, and not what is best for himself.
How many senators can you name? If he were just one of 50 votes, I doubt many would know who he is, even in his own state.
I’m sure that there are many ways for him to cash in on the name recognition that his “quest of bipartisanship” gains him, even if he is voted out in 4 years.
Unless he switched parties (Dem → GOP), Manchin has zero chance to be a Democratic contender in the next presidential election; He’s far too conservative. And if he does switch sides, he’ll be seen as being too cozy with Democrats to be a serious contender for the GOP. I think he wants what’s best for W.V. and he certainly enjoys the power he currently holds as the “swing” vote in the senate.
Is this a reply to me? If so, why did you bring up presidential election? If not, who is this a reply to?
You say those two things as though they could not possibly be mutually exclusive. In your opinion, which do you think he puts more weight on?
I assumed that when you brought up the subject of what benefits Manchin, political ambitions was what you were talking about.
He’s a senator from a state that voted overwhelmingly for Trump. How is his power not inextricably linked to what he can deliver to W.V. as a Democrat?