For those who are curious about what a Democratic controlled Senate can achieve, I invite you to listen to today’s edition of “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross...Her guest today is Adam Jentleson, author of “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy.”
Jentleson is the former Deputy Chief of Staff for Harry Reid...The topic of his book and today’s interview is basically the history of the Senate rules and procedures. Most specifically, the Fillibuster...
A very fascinating and enlightening discussion about the Senate and what the author suggests the Democrats will need to do to end the gridlock in the Senate and pass legislation to move forward any progressive agenda....A very good listen and well worth everyone’s time no matter what your individual politics...
Here's link to today's interview:
For those who are curious about what a Democratic controlled Senate can achieve, I invite you to listen to today’s edition of “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross...Her guest today is Adam Jentleson, author of “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy.”
Jentleson is the former Deputy Chief of Staff for Harry Reid...The topic of his book and today’s interview is basically the history of the Senate rules and procedures. Most specifically, the Fillibuster...
A very fascinating and enlightening discussion about the Senate and what the author suggests the Democrats will need to do to end the gridlock in the Senate and pass legislation to move forward any progressive agenda....A very good listen and well worth everyone’s time no matter what your individual politics...
Let us see what could, and possibly will happen with a House and Senate controlled (it's funny I originally typed rickrolled) by the Democrats. Higher taxes, higher health care costs, more aggressive attacks on the 2nd Amendment, more inroads on personal freedoms, higher energy costs due to congressional mandates on renewable energy and "green energy", higher food costs since some members of congress don't like cow farts and will probably want to place a fee on farmers, more "benefits" for low income workers by "income redistribution". There's a few "progressive agenda" ideas.
Well, I am all for them trying to do something, anything for the people in this country. McConnell blocked everything Obama tried to do for 6 years. Under Trump, the House sent over 300 bills to the Senate - many that would have helped main stream Americans - and McConnell blocked every single one of them, because it was more important for him to jam in over 200 conservative judges, many that were ranked unqualified, or had no experience.
It's time we stopped ignoring climate change (green deal is a starting point - doesn't mean it can't be changed or tweaked), stopped cutting back on environmental laws that tried to make our water and air cleaner, and maybe get an Education Secretary that understands public education... and that's just a start.
And by the way, your taxes are already going up. Trump's plan cut taxes for the rich and businesses, but the cuts for middle income and lower income individuals only last for a year or 2, and then go up over the next few years so that you pay more to help pay for the rich getting tax cuts. Biden is proposing to increase taxes on those making over $400,000 (or $450,000 - too lazy to look it up right now).
I plan to listen to podcast tomorrow, thank you.
It should come as no surprise what agenda items a Democrat controlled Senate will take up. Doesn't even matter what my opinion on this is. I hope they govern from the center-left, I can hold no other reasonable expectation given the incoming body's make up. They could be further left leaning which I hope they are not and that could make for some interesting bedfellows among moderates on both sides. We will have to wait and see.
The Republicans haven't been able to keep their majority and that is their own fault. Collectively and regionally, they have not given the majority of their constituents what those constituents want, thus we get change. It is long long overdue for meaningful action on a number of issues. In a perfect world, Democrats and Republicans would compromise and hammer out bills to address the problems facing America. Since this never happens, the only way things get done is when one side can push through their proposals without having to seek or yield to any desires from the other side. I do not think that is good for the country, but really, nothing that comes out of Washington these days is good for the country. So here we are. I am expecting as many bills to be done on a simple majority basis as possible, which is what the Republicans also tried to do.
As far as Senate majority leaders blocking bills from the House, Reid blocked hundreds of bills just as McConnell has. Likely just as many. This is standard operating procedure these days in the uber-partisan House-Senate process. Now, controlling both legislative branches, nothing remains but the filibuster. Might it be on it's way out? That would sure make for some hot debate and perhaps an all-out Senate meltdown. I imagine Chain's link will provide insight on what is or isn't possible or likely.
If you listen to the interview you’ll understand what an anomaly the filibuster is and that it was created by one Senator, John Calhoun, in the early mid 1800’s to basically save the institution of slavery.
The founding fathers wanted majority rule, NOT minority rule.....The filibuster provides for exactly the opposite and should never have been allowed for period.
By the way, the filibuster can be used by any Senator to object to any legislation, not just by the Senate leadership. The author points out how the process has basically gridlocked the Senate for the past decade or so, mostly by Mitch McConnell...
Listen to the entire podcast and judge for yourself if this mechanism should be allowed to continue
Sorry, but my great-great something cousin didn't invent the filibuster.
Check out and compare what the Senate website says vs what Jentleson says.
There was the notion that all Senators and Representatives had the right to speak out on any and all legislation. The House put in rules on the amount of time due to the number of Representatives getting bigger. The Senate continued with the unlimited debate rule.
The first reported filibuster, and threat to stop discussion was 1841, and had no relation to slavery or John Calhoun. It was about a bank bill.
From the Senate web page: "In 1841, when the Democratic majority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate."
www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
Jerry,
I’ll say it again, listen to the podcast....Then chime in with your thoughts. The Senate website is only that, a website....Controlled, at the moment at least, by guess who? The present majority...
All I’m suggesting is they end the filibuster as it creates gridlock in the Senate and thus the entire Congress. I would make the same suggestion no matter which party holds the majority by the way. It does nothing to encourage actual debate or bi-partisan cooperation....Things sorely lacking in the Senate for the past decade or so.
I listened to the show. It was good, you can always learn something. Adam Jentleson's knowledge of the Senate far exceeds mine and he knows more than I likely ever will.
While I think it is fair to say the filibuster was used as a tool to thwart civil rights advancement and was used by pro-slavery southern Senators in the mid-1800s, I do not think it is fair or accurate to say that the filibuster was first used or created for those means.
I kind of skimmed through here after listening to further brush up on some first hand filibuster background:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111shrg62210/html/CHRG-111shrg62210.htm
Jentleson, and you Chain, and even myself, can say we want to end the filibuster, but clearly there are many many quotes of Democrats and Republicans both defending the filibuster and calling for it to be abolished all depending on where their party lies in majority or minority. As outsiders, even Jentleson who worked as an insider, it's easier for us to say do away with it and get on with working together and solving problems. Then it comes to the people who actually have to do the voting and ridding the Senate of the filibuster becomes much more controversial for them personally. I get why they want it and why they feel they need it. It's not a good tool, but it is a tool they all use none-the-less.
Jentleson said something that I found interesting although I do not know how possible. He said that getting rid of the filibuster and requiring a simple majority will encourage bipartisan work and votes. He cited the history where the filibuster was much less used and how simple majorities were the standard on many pieces of legislation that minorities would try to block and then sometimes get out of the way or actually on board. These times we live in now are so much different than even the 1990s and certainly the 1960s or pick your decade. The way that the loud and critical groups of supporters hold their representatives accountable for fighting for the ideals of the 'movement", that makes compromise much more difficult than it has ever been, perhaps impossible all together in the information age where everyone behind a phone or a keyboard is an activist waiting to happen and threatening to primary any representative the second they get out of line. I can't see how it is possible to actually attract votes on a simple majority basis when one side can craft the bill they want and if the other side doesn't like it, screw them, don't need them to pass it anyway.
It is true, I agree, that even just getting one's own caucus on board to pass a party line vote can be difficult, but it is much easier to whip your own party together than it is to peel a few votes away from the other side. Simple majorities mean that one party one rule is more likely with everything. At least I think so.
Still, the 60 threshold hurdle is very problematic. It is not historic in the sense the founders wanted that, there isn't any unwritten rule that says the minority must be protected.
At the same time, legislating solely by one party is ridiculous too. I don't care if it is all Republicans doing it or all Democrats doing it. Nobody should ever get all of what they want because considerations and outcomes need to be factored for everyone, not just the group(s) that one side of the aisle is serving, not just the ones that agree with you. Sure, if we were all Democrats or all Republicans than bills designed and passed through their lens and only their lens would be wonderful, but we are not.
I think the fate of the filibuster will be banished. It is the natural progression of things. I expect it might be one of the first things this Senate does because by leaving it in place, their administration will be severely hamstrung and they can't have that.
I also think that Jentleson's perspective would be a little more, maybe, balanced had he served Senator Reid prior to 2010. In the interview he says he doesn't want to downplay the Democrat's role in the expanded use of the filibuster, but he essentially did downplay it. Sure, Mitch McConnell took it to new heights, but one could say that Harry Reid's role as minority leader during the Bush Presidency set the framework for how the filibuster was to be used as it is now. The picture is painted that Republicans use it to block the righteous and good and just work that needs done in Congress, when it can be said that Democrats have recently done the same.
One final thought I had that I kind of chuckled, when they talked about how the vote requirement was changed to get Obama nominees passed to a simple majority requirement, that was - good. When the rule was changed to get Trump Supreme Court nominees passed by a simple majority, that was - bad. It is either both bad or both good, not good when one side you like gets what they want and not bad when the side you don't like does it to get what they want. Some will say that McConnell was blocking all the nominees and the Democrats had no choice...was it not the Democrat's intention to block all the Trump Supreme Court nominees? Please. I guess this is my problem, it makes things more difficult when you can't just stay on one side and point to all the negative things the other side does, they both do it.
Don't take that the wrong way Chain. I am better for having listened to the interview. Maybe I'm looking for contradictions and am too cynical with media and journalists and how people portray things these days, it's hard to take anything exclusively at face value any more.
Maybe I will say it like this better...just because the two parties can't work together, I don't think removing the filibuster to allow them to work together less is a better option.
What might be a better solution? Maybe if neither the Democrats nor the Republicans held anywhere close to 50 votes. What if some kind of legislative body was made up of 33% one party, 33% another party and 33% another party? Or better yet, 25-25-25-25% among 4 parties. You want simple majority votes then, no problem because that requires legislators to figure out how to pass it without just their own "friends" writing it, you have to get input and support from others.
I agree with you on he should have been more balanced, and stayed on his subject.
There is another voice to listen to, and wrote a book on the same subject, from back in 1996 and gives a far more balanced view instead of me=good, you=bad.
Their book "Politics or Principle? , Filibustering In The united States Senate"
www.npr.org/books/titles/138418341/politics-or-principle-filibustering-in-the-united-states-senate
A short interview and synopsis of the book on NPR.
I will follow that link later as well @Jerry.
Jentleson was on Chris Cuomo's radio show today as well I caught it at 1:00 listening via satellite radio. Some of the same points but several different angles to the topics also.
As I said, whether the Dems or Republicans are the majority or minority party, the filibuster should be abolished. And I couldn’t agree more that both sides have abused it at various times. But it was never the intention of the founding fathers to have such a mechanism in the Senate.
I've gotten to the point that I almost don't care what they do. Keep it, get rid of it. I know why they want it, I know why it hampers problem solving, and can sometimes sympathize with their intent in using it.
One thing Jentleson said on Cuomo was how the filibuster has become to be used just to make the other side look bad. And I know he is referring to Senators calling the other side "do nothing" all while they are blocking the bills that result in the do nothing. But I've heard a Dem and a Rep Senate called "do nothing". To the contrary they filibuster not to simply make the other side look bad, they genuinely do not want what would be voted upon to be signed into law.
If they're going to have a fillabuster, at least make them continue to debate until they drop. Make them stay in session until they fall asleep. Nobody leaves. Maybe that way it's not used for anything but the most important legislation. Maybe it will keep the same people from running over and over for their entire lives.
That is what I think it should be too. Literally unlimited and endless debate. But at some point, and the author described this, all there has to be is the alert or I'm not sure the word, the notification that X would object and thereby intent to filibuster so in order to not sidetrack other business they would just move to something else. But I favor the 24 or 36 hour single speaker marathons. You want it, then mean it. Rand Paul I think had our longest filibuster speech. I'd have to verify.
The Green New Deal is a 15 trillion dollar socialist monster that goes far beyond cutting carbon emissions. We absolutely don't want it.
Like Bernie Sanders, it wants to remove capital from capitalism, outlaw private stockholder ownership of corporations and give ownership to the workers who will be anchored to massive government regulations and very high taxes. There will be no incentive to make a profit and practice efficiently because the corporation will be married to the federal government which will capture most of its income through high taxes the way it works in Scandinavian countries and our needs will be addressed by government through a massive NANNIE WELLFARE state.
Maybe that sounds good and 56% of young Democrats want socialism to replace the free market. But these Democratic socialists such as Sanders and AOC and Markey want to tell you where to live, how you must heat and cool your home, what and when you can drive and when you must take high speed electric rail rather than fly, want you can eat and whether you can own cattle. We might as well be carrying pictures of Chairman Mao!!!
I'm a slightly left of center Democrat who voted for Clinton, Obama etc. Good level headed Democrats such as Joe Manchin and Diane Feinstein hopefully will help us avoid a green new deal.
Perhaps the federal government can help with getting the electricity grid over to all wind, solar, natural gas, nuclear etc but the private sector and existing energy companies can get a lot done on reducing carbon. Lots of carbon capture plants are planned now and United Airlines and Occidental Petroleum are investing in that. Plus biofuels are coming for engines and airliners. A mix of biofuels with Jet kerosene cuts emissions from jets by 80 percent!! Pratt and Whitney has a new engine RIGHT NOW called the GTF that cuts emissions by 16% per seat mile. Equivalent of taking a two million cars off the road when just Delta Airlines get the 200 jets it has ordered with these new Pratt and Whitney engines. They have 46 of them flying now.
Since Biden has actively campaigned against The Green New Deal, I'd have to say the whole idea is not even worth discussing. If it somehow made its way through the senate (it won't, not a chance), it would be DOA on Biden's desk. It's a non-starter supported by less than 20% of the Democratic party, and 0% of the Republicans. Same with calls to defund the police. It will go nowhere, at least on the federal level. It makes for nice scare tactics for the Republicans though.
The Green New Deal has already been set in motion. Private venture, corporate capital, institutional investors, and state, local, and federal government incentives have been in place for many years now and have already precipitated “green” renewable energy projects on a massive scale....
What some politicians are advocating from the new administration is to simply scale up massively the already decade plus long investments by the private sector and increase government subsidies....
What this enhanced New Deal may encompass is yet to be determined. But as 2112 so aptly put it, Biden is not supportive of some of the measures others have called for.
What is encouraging is that simple relatively painless changes like returning to the mileage standard Obama mandated before Trump removed it is an easy fix. As are increased federal incentives for electric cars, residential solar installation, energy star appliances, etc...And building a modern, “smart” grid...
Even a modest carbon tax being put in place is achievable as we move forward...Either way, Green is the future. The corporations know it, anyone who follows the flow of capital knows it, and most citizens with their heads NOT glued to the propaganda machine of the fossil fuel industry know it.
