I agree with Senator Paul and others here that it is entirely hypocritical to be against Obama's deficits for 8 years and then as soon as you gain power add to the national debt with the first budget you pass. If the Republicans do pass this budget, then their tax reform wasn't a tax "cut" at all: it was simply a tax deferral that will be paid for by future generations.
@jjstraka34 Well, Democrats still *do* have agency, since you need 60 votes to pass this budget. They were responsible for the last shutdown, because they refused to vote to keep the government open unless they got a vote on DACA. DACA is an entirely unrelated issue that has nothing to do with the spending bill. PS: Pleaaaaasse do not watch Thom Hartmann. You can find better sources than that!
I agree with Senator Paul and others here that it is entirely hypocritical to be against Obama's deficits for 8 years and then as soon as you gain power add to the national debt with the first budget you pass. If the Republicans do pass this budget, then their tax reform wasn't a tax "cut" at all: it was simply a tax deferral that will be paid for by future generations.
@jjstraka34 Well, Democrats still *do* have agency, since you need 60 votes to pass this budget. They were responsible for the last shutdown, because they refused to vote to keep the government open unless they got a vote on DACA. DACA is an entirely unrelated issue that has nothing to do with the spending bill. PS: Pleaaaaasse do not watch Thom Hartmann. You can find better sources than that!
Republicans waived the 60-vote rule on every major political battle of 2016 EXCEPT the budget, which McConnell can do with a wave of his hand. Like he did on Gorsuch, every Obamacare repeal vote, and the tax bill. But not the budget?? Forget that noise....we've eliminated the filibuster on every major piece of Senate business for an entire year, just be done with it. Beyond that, they are not in charge, and don't OWE the Republicans votes when they are offered so input on anything for an entire year, and offered nothing in return for their votes. Republicans wanted to be in power, so be in power. Run your damn government. That includes finding the votes THEY need if in fact THEY decide on an arbitrary basis to all of a sudden think the 60-vote threshold is meaningful when it's suits their media narrative. It wasn't applicable to any other major fight of last year. McConnell and Ryan decide every bill that does or doesn't come to the floor. Democrats are simply expected to lay down on the train tracks after being shut out of all government process for a year. Which they often do, for the sake being the adults in the room.
If you say you are pleased with the budget, but refuse to vote for it unless you (in the minority party) get your way on a separate issue, it is pretty clear that you should shoulder at least the majority of the "blame" for the outcome. There may be a multicausal outcome, but Nancy Pelosi and her voting bloc are certainly the proximate cause.
If you say you are pleased with the budget, but refuse to vote for it unless you (in the minority party) get your way on a separate issue, it is pretty clear that you should shoulder at least the majority of the "blame" for the outcome. There may be a multicausal outcome, but Nancy Pelosi and her voting bloc are certainly the proximate cause.
This is what I'm talking about. When Democrats are in power, they shoulder blame for outcomes. When they are out of in power in every single branch of government, they shoulder the blame for the outcome. It's like we're living in a live-action version of "Catch-22". Her voting bloc is Democrats, whose only leverage is to withhold votes from an opposition party who has ALL power in Washington (including the only one that matters, which is what bills come to the floor). Why the hell should she provide them votes (even though she has been doing so in similar situations for almost a decade)??
After the last shutdown McConnell promised a up or down vote on DACA by THIS date. February 8th. Nothing has happened. The entire thing was a lie. Paul Ryan has no intention of bringing it up at all. And I knew this when it happened. But I suppose the calculation was that after Republicans made a handshake deal about a up or down DACA vote, people would be able to remember events that took place less than 3 weeks ago. But I knew that was fool's gold when it happened. Since Republicans continue to lie through their teeth about any DACA resolution, what the hell are the Democrats supposed to do to force the issue (despite the fact that it won't work anyway)??
And as for THIS shutdown, it is ALL on the Republicans. Ryan can pass any piece of legislation in the universe without a single Democratic vote if he had his caucus in line (which he doesn't, which he never has, which Bohener never had either). And Rand Paul is causing the delay in the Senate by himself right now. The Senate portion will pass the second he stops. And are we seriously forgetting that Trump said earlier this week he would, quote, "love to see a shutdown"?? That happened less than 72 hours ago.
Republicans shouldered the blame for past shutdowns according to almost all national polling, and they refused to vote for the continuing resolution due to budgetary concerns. If continuing resolutions aren't the time and place to have that debate, then there is none. DACA is separate.
You may want a DACA vote (as do I), but you can't say that the blame doesn't fall on the Democrats feet when they use the threat of a government shutdown to force a vote.
Republicans shouldered the blame for past shutdowns according to almost all national polling, and they refused to vote for the continuing resolution due to budgetary concerns. If continuing resolutions aren't the time and place to have that debate, then there is none. DACA is separate.
You may want a DACA vote (as do I), but you can't say that the blame doesn't fall on the Democrats feet when they use the threat of a government shutdown to force a vote.
Catch 22 again. They could hope Republicans bring a DACA vote without a bunch of extraneous crap like Trump Wall and massive cuts to legal immigration but they would not do that. Republicans will either add those poison pills or just not do it. Their base wants them to do something. This is all they can do. It ain't much more than be annoying but that's it. The rest is on Republicans.
What is eating Tide pods supposed to do anyway?? I remember one time we sniffed salt in a Spanish class that was being taught remotely through TVs from another school (because, you know, it was kinda-like pretending to do cocaine). That experiment lasted approximately 1 minute before we vowed never to do something quite that stupid again.
What is eating Tide pods supposed to do anyway?? I remember one time we sniffed salt in a Spanish class that was being taught remotely through TVs from another school (because, you know, it was kinda-like pretending to do cocaine). That experiment lasted approximately 1 minute before we vowed never to do something quite that stupid again.
Some people will do *anything*, no matter how off-the-wall, illogical, and/or potentially harmful, to receive "likes" or views for their online videos. The Internet used to be cats and balls but everyone has moved on since then.
*************
The budget deal just got signed. I have to find the term again, but there is a situation which arises in the psychology of groups where the group, collectively, can arrive at a decision which no individual person in the group fully supports.
Don't worry, though--if you didn't get enough of the government shutdown blues this time you will have another chance in late March, when they have to do all this crap all over again.
Some people will do *anything*, no matter how off-the-wall, illogical, and/or potentially harmful, to receive "likes" or views for their online videos. The Internet used to be cats and balls but everyone has moved on since then.
*************
The budget deal just got signed. I have to find the term again, but there is a situation which arises in the psychology of groups where the group, collectively, can arrive at a decision which no individual person in the group fully supports.
Don't worry, though--if you didn't get enough of the government shutdown blues this time you will have another chance in late March, when they have to do all this crap all over again.
It's actually March of next year from what I understand. So, at this point, the DACA deal is unshackled from the budget completely. The DACA deadline is March 5th. BOTH Republican leaders are on the record about bringing votes to the floor after the budget was finished. They have explicitly promised this. We have audio and video of them saying it. We all know Trump is going to try extract money for the wall (or whatever is going to be passed off as a wall) in this situation. And this clip (or any number of the DOZENS of others that are similar) should be played for context every single time that subject comes up:
Oh, March of next year? I must have misread the date when I was reading the article.
Now...the people who want something done about DACA can't really be convinced that anything is going to happen, can they? Surely they can't be that naive, right? Trust me--that check is in the mail.
Some people will do *anything*, no matter how off-the-wall, illogical, and/or potentially harmful, to receive "likes" or views for their online videos. The Internet used to be cats and balls but everyone has moved on since then.
*************
The budget deal just got signed. I have to find the term again, but there is a situation which arises in the psychology of groups where the group, collectively, can arrive at a decision which no individual person in the group fully supports.
Don't worry, though--if you didn't get enough of the government shutdown blues this time you will have another chance in late March, when they have to do all this crap all over again.
It's actually March of next year from what I understand. So, at this point, the DACA deal is unshackled from the budget completely. The DACA deadline is March 5th. BOTH Republican leaders are on the record about bringing votes to the floor after the budget was finished. They have explicitly promised this. We have audio and video of them saying it. We all know Trump is going to try extract money for the wall (or whatever is going to be passed off as a wall) in this situation. And this clip (or any number of the DOZENS of others that are similar) should be played for context every single time that subject comes up:
This has changed to Mexico is going to pay for it one way or another. The other way being the way where they don't actually pay for it. Maybe Trump will enroll a bunch of Mexicans in Trump University and steal their money.
So that was a short Republican shutdown. The next one is March next year? Devious devious they don't have another one scheduled until after the 2018 midterms.
I agree with Senator Paul and others here that it is entirely hypocritical to be against Obama's deficits for 8 years and then as soon as you gain power add to the national debt with the first budget you pass. If the Republicans do pass this budget, then their tax reform wasn't a tax "cut" at all: it was simply a tax deferral that will be paid for by future generations.
@jjstraka34 Well, Democrats still *do* have agency, since you need 60 votes to pass this budget. They were responsible for the last shutdown, because they refused to vote to keep the government open unless they got a vote on DACA. DACA is an entirely unrelated issue that has nothing to do with the spending bill. PS: Pleaaaaasse do not watch Thom Hartmann. You can find better sources than that!
Republicans waived the 60-vote rule on every major political battle of 2016 EXCEPT the budget, which McConnell can do with a wave of his hand. Like he did on Gorsuch, every Obamacare repeal vote, and the tax bill. But not the budget?? Forget that noise....we've eliminated the filibuster on every major piece of Senate business for an entire year, just be done with it. Beyond that, they are not in charge, and don't OWE the Republicans votes when they are offered so input on anything for an entire year, and offered nothing in return for their votes. Republicans wanted to be in power, so be in power. Run your damn government. That includes finding the votes THEY need if in fact THEY decide on an arbitrary basis to all of a sudden think the 60-vote threshold is meaningful when it's suits their media narrative. It wasn't applicable to any other major fight of last year. McConnell and Ryan decide every bill that does or doesn't come to the floor. Democrats are simply expected to lay down on the train tracks after being shut out of all government process for a year. Which they often do, for the sake being the adults in the room.
This is a common misconception, so let me just share this:
What you described is factually incorrect. The filibuster is parliamentary rule. However, the Byrd Rule, blocks legislation if it possibly would increase significantly the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term or is otherwise an "extraneous matter" unless a 60 vote threshold is met.
The key difference is that the Byrd Rule is law, not just a rule of the senate. So McConnell cannot waive the rule.
I agree with Senator Paul and others here that it is entirely hypocritical to be against Obama's deficits for 8 years and then as soon as you gain power add to the national debt with the first budget you pass. If the Republicans do pass this budget, then their tax reform wasn't a tax "cut" at all: it was simply a tax deferral that will be paid for by future generations.
@jjstraka34 Well, Democrats still *do* have agency, since you need 60 votes to pass this budget. They were responsible for the last shutdown, because they refused to vote to keep the government open unless they got a vote on DACA. DACA is an entirely unrelated issue that has nothing to do with the spending bill. PS: Pleaaaaasse do not watch Thom Hartmann. You can find better sources than that!
Republicans waived the 60-vote rule on every major political battle of 2016 EXCEPT the budget, which McConnell can do with a wave of his hand. Like he did on Gorsuch, every Obamacare repeal vote, and the tax bill. But not the budget?? Forget that noise....we've eliminated the filibuster on every major piece of Senate business for an entire year, just be done with it. Beyond that, they are not in charge, and don't OWE the Republicans votes when they are offered so input on anything for an entire year, and offered nothing in return for their votes. Republicans wanted to be in power, so be in power. Run your damn government. That includes finding the votes THEY need if in fact THEY decide on an arbitrary basis to all of a sudden think the 60-vote threshold is meaningful when it's suits their media narrative. It wasn't applicable to any other major fight of last year. McConnell and Ryan decide every bill that does or doesn't come to the floor. Democrats are simply expected to lay down on the train tracks after being shut out of all government process for a year. Which they often do, for the sake being the adults in the room.
This is a common misconception, so let me just share this:
What you described is factually incorrect. The filibuster is parliamentary rule. However, the Byrd Rule, blocks legislation if it possibly would increase significantly the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term or is otherwise an "extraneous matter" unless a 60 vote threshold is met.
The key difference is that the Byrd Rule is law, not just a rule of the senate. So McConnell cannot waive the rule.
But the Byrd rule can be waived by a 60-vote threshold. What evidence is there that this was ever even attempted?? To my knowledge, McConnell never brought up the issue, nor did Schumer insist upon it. As far as I can tell, this never even came up. I can't find any documentation that Democrats raised points of order about this during the last shutdown. And how would a less than one month-long continuing resolution (which is what happened 3 weeks ago) "increase significantly the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term"?? The Byrd rule seems to have played FAR more a role in the tax bill, as it is main reason certain middle-class exemptions couldn't be eliminated until 2027. I don't see how it applies to a 3-week stop-gap continuing resolution at all. This rule IS the reason for many things in the attempted ACA repeal and the tax bill. I can't find a single article about it that applies to the recent budget debates. The only thing I can find is that the Byrd would LIMIT what could be done in reconciliation (51 votes), but it would not eliminate the ability to use it entirely. In fact, reconciliation is usually STRICTLY used for matters relating to the budget. It's not a matter of not wanting or being able to do it. It's that McConnell and the Republicans didn't craft the bill in a way that would allow them to do so. It is entirely dependent on the way the legislation is crafted:
@joluv I disagree a parent who commits an illegal act that benefits their children is the same as another parent who commits an illegal act which benefits their children. A good example of this is the person who gets out of prison, they try to live legally. The person has two children. They have a choice of making $240 a week or $2000 a week. One paycheck provides for their children the other does not. One is legal the other is not. Like those who enter the country illegally the person only wants to provide a better life for their child and raise them out of poverty.
While I emphasis with both parents (as I want the best for my family as well) their actions are wrong. So my proposal is creating a path for DACA members. They do not have a right to be in this country, however it is not their fault they are here. A similar example is a man who was adopted as a baby from South Korea at around four months. His parents abused him, he was sent to foster care. As an adult he broke the law. Neither his adoptive parents, nor did his foster parents ever apply for him to become a permeant US citizen. He was deported to South Korea, a country he does not know with a language he does not speak. He came to this country legally.
So we come with the issue of DACA. If it was a matter of simply handing out citizenship (or permeant VISAS) parents will bring their children to this country so they have a chance of a better life. They love their children and want them to have a better life. If there is a guaranteed path to stay in legally (without earning it) most parents will take it. I do not fault the parents for wanting a better life for their children. That is the difficulty about a permeant solution which is fair to Dreamers, but does not create a never ending cycle. Ideally I would also like a world where the first person could gain legal employment which pays enough to live on and the second paragraph guy was not deported.
I personally would lean in favor of finding a way to keep DACA members in the U.S. I believe there are many viable paths to citizenship. So while we may disagree with how we view things we both agree on wanting them to be able to remain in the United States.
I agree with Senator Paul and others here that it is entirely hypocritical to be against Obama's deficits for 8 years and then as soon as you gain power add to the national debt with the first budget you pass. If the Republicans do pass this budget, then their tax reform wasn't a tax "cut" at all: it was simply a tax deferral that will be paid for by future generations.
@jjstraka34 Well, Democrats still *do* have agency, since you need 60 votes to pass this budget. They were responsible for the last shutdown, because they refused to vote to keep the government open unless they got a vote on DACA. DACA is an entirely unrelated issue that has nothing to do with the spending bill. PS: Pleaaaaasse do not watch Thom Hartmann. You can find better sources than that!
Republicans waived the 60-vote rule on every major political battle of 2016 EXCEPT the budget, which McConnell can do with a wave of his hand. Like he did on Gorsuch, every Obamacare repeal vote, and the tax bill. But not the budget?? Forget that noise....we've eliminated the filibuster on every major piece of Senate business for an entire year, just be done with it. Beyond that, they are not in charge, and don't OWE the Republicans votes when they are offered so input on anything for an entire year, and offered nothing in return for their votes. Republicans wanted to be in power, so be in power. Run your damn government. That includes finding the votes THEY need if in fact THEY decide on an arbitrary basis to all of a sudden think the 60-vote threshold is meaningful when it's suits their media narrative. It wasn't applicable to any other major fight of last year. McConnell and Ryan decide every bill that does or doesn't come to the floor. Democrats are simply expected to lay down on the train tracks after being shut out of all government process for a year. Which they often do, for the sake being the adults in the room.
This is a common misconception, so let me just share this:
What you described is factually incorrect. The filibuster is parliamentary rule. However, the Byrd Rule, blocks legislation if it possibly would increase significantly the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term or is otherwise an "extraneous matter" unless a 60 vote threshold is met.
The key difference is that the Byrd Rule is law, not just a rule of the senate. So McConnell cannot waive the rule.
But the Byrd rule can be waived by a 60-vote threshold. What evidence is there that this was ever even attempted?? To my knowledge, McConnell never brought up the issue, nor did Schumer insist upon it. As far as I can tell, this never even came up. I can't find any documentation that Democrats raised points of order about this during the last shutdown. And how would a less than one month-long continuing resolution (which is what happened 3 weeks ago) "increase significantly the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term"?? The Byrd rule seems to have played FAR more a role in the tax bill, as it is main reason certain middle-class exemptions couldn't be eliminated until 2027. I don't see how it applies to a 3-week stop-gap continuing resolution at all. This rule IS the reason for many things in the attempted ACA repeal and the tax bill. I can't find a single article about it that applies to the recent budget debates. The only thing I can find is that the Byrd would LIMIT what could be done in reconciliation (51 votes), but it would not eliminate the ability to use it entirely.
But that's the point, the reason we live by continuing resolution is the Byrd Rule. Otherwise they need to go through the reconciliation process.
Also, I find it odd that it is McConnell's fault for not exercising the nuclear option in order to... overcome complete intransigence by the other side.
Given the Senate is the only place where Democrats currently have any power, I don't think going nuclear is a good move for anyone. If McConnell did go nuclear, you'd be more upset than anyone.
@joluv I disagree a parent who commits an illegal act that benefits their children is the same as another parent who commits an illegal act which benefits their children.
Yes, but its important to note that illegal immigration is a victimless crime.
I agree with Senator Paul and others here that it is entirely hypocritical to be against Obama's deficits for 8 years and then as soon as you gain power add to the national debt with the first budget you pass. If the Republicans do pass this budget, then their tax reform wasn't a tax "cut" at all: it was simply a tax deferral that will be paid for by future generations.
@jjstraka34 Well, Democrats still *do* have agency, since you need 60 votes to pass this budget. They were responsible for the last shutdown, because they refused to vote to keep the government open unless they got a vote on DACA. DACA is an entirely unrelated issue that has nothing to do with the spending bill. PS: Pleaaaaasse do not watch Thom Hartmann. You can find better sources than that!
Republicans waived the 60-vote rule on every major political battle of 2016 EXCEPT the budget, which McConnell can do with a wave of his hand. Like he did on Gorsuch, every Obamacare repeal vote, and the tax bill. But not the budget?? Forget that noise....we've eliminated the filibuster on every major piece of Senate business for an entire year, just be done with it. Beyond that, they are not in charge, and don't OWE the Republicans votes when they are offered so input on anything for an entire year, and offered nothing in return for their votes. Republicans wanted to be in power, so be in power. Run your damn government. That includes finding the votes THEY need if in fact THEY decide on an arbitrary basis to all of a sudden think the 60-vote threshold is meaningful when it's suits their media narrative. It wasn't applicable to any other major fight of last year. McConnell and Ryan decide every bill that does or doesn't come to the floor. Democrats are simply expected to lay down on the train tracks after being shut out of all government process for a year. Which they often do, for the sake being the adults in the room.
This is a common misconception, so let me just share this:
What you described is factually incorrect. The filibuster is parliamentary rule. However, the Byrd Rule, blocks legislation if it possibly would increase significantly the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term or is otherwise an "extraneous matter" unless a 60 vote threshold is met.
The key difference is that the Byrd Rule is law, not just a rule of the senate. So McConnell cannot waive the rule.
But the Byrd rule can be waived by a 60-vote threshold. What evidence is there that this was ever even attempted?? To my knowledge, McConnell never brought up the issue, nor did Schumer insist upon it. As far as I can tell, this never even came up. I can't find any documentation that Democrats raised points of order about this during the last shutdown. And how would a less than one month-long continuing resolution (which is what happened 3 weeks ago) "increase significantly the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term"?? The Byrd rule seems to have played FAR more a role in the tax bill, as it is main reason certain middle-class exemptions couldn't be eliminated until 2027. I don't see how it applies to a 3-week stop-gap continuing resolution at all. This rule IS the reason for many things in the attempted ACA repeal and the tax bill. I can't find a single article about it that applies to the recent budget debates. The only thing I can find is that the Byrd would LIMIT what could be done in reconciliation (51 votes), but it would not eliminate the ability to use it entirely.
But that's the point, the reason we live by continuing resolution is the Byrd Rule. Otherwise they need to go through the reconciliation process.
Also, I find it odd that it is McConnell's fault for not exercising the nuclear option in order to... overcome complete intransigence by the other side.
Given the Senate is the only place where Democrats currently have any power, I don't think going nuclear is a good move for anyone. If McConnell did go nuclear, you'd be more upset than anyone.
I wouldn't care at all. McConnell went beyond nuclear the moment he didn't allow a hearing for Obama's Supreme Court pick (ANY Supreme Court pick) and effectively stole the seat in one of the most ridiculous acts in the history of this country. McConnell destroyed the US Senate as an institution the moment that happened. The filibuster has already been eliminated in almost every situation where it matters anyway. Cut the crap and be done with it once and for all I say. The Democrat's "power" (such as it is, or isn't) in the Senate didn't help in any regard to Gorsuch, or the tax bill. I suppose the middle-class exemptions being on the books til 2027 is a net-plus, but that also played to the advantage of the GOP since it delays the true end-game and repercussions of the tax bill til years after anyone will remember who was responsible. I see no point to the Democrats holding onto the filibuster because it is only useful marginally at best, and at worst (as has been the case this year), it allows the GOP to use it in certain situations that HELP their narrative. Screw it. It's 90% a farce as is.
Let's also keep in mind that Democrats are engaging the the exact behavior the GOP paid NO price for the entire last 6 years of the Obama Administration. There was a stone-wall put up against anything Obama tried to do. It was a strategy of total obstruction (ADMITTED total obstruction). They paid no price for it, and taught us all that it worked. But, once again, Democrats are supposed to bring a feather duster to a gun fight, and roll over. Which they usually do anyway, like last night. Which doesn't much matter because they have no leverage. Which equals no power.
If people want to see how Democratic legislative priorities would have played out, they should have elected them. CHIP and DACA wouldn't even be discussions we are having, because neither would have been allowed to expire or been changed. Both would have been par for the course. This country elected Republicans, so issues that would have stayed as the uncontroversial status quo under Democratic governance are now boiler-plate issues.
I agree with Senator Paul and others here that it is entirely hypocritical to be against Obama's deficits for 8 years and then as soon as you gain power add to the national debt with the first budget you pass. If the Republicans do pass this budget, then their tax reform wasn't a tax "cut" at all: it was simply a tax deferral that will be paid for by future generations.
@jjstraka34 Well, Democrats still *do* have agency, since you need 60 votes to pass this budget. They were responsible for the last shutdown, because they refused to vote to keep the government open unless they got a vote on DACA. DACA is an entirely unrelated issue that has nothing to do with the spending bill. PS: Pleaaaaasse do not watch Thom Hartmann. You can find better sources than that!
Republicans waived the 60-vote rule on every major political battle of 2016 EXCEPT the budget, which McConnell can do with a wave of his hand. Like he did on Gorsuch, every Obamacare repeal vote, and the tax bill. But not the budget?? Forget that noise....we've eliminated the filibuster on every major piece of Senate business for an entire year, just be done with it. Beyond that, they are not in charge, and don't OWE the Republicans votes when they are offered so input on anything for an entire year, and offered nothing in return for their votes. Republicans wanted to be in power, so be in power. Run your damn government. That includes finding the votes THEY need if in fact THEY decide on an arbitrary basis to all of a sudden think the 60-vote threshold is meaningful when it's suits their media narrative. It wasn't applicable to any other major fight of last year. McConnell and Ryan decide every bill that does or doesn't come to the floor. Democrats are simply expected to lay down on the train tracks after being shut out of all government process for a year. Which they often do, for the sake being the adults in the room.
This is a common misconception, so let me just share this:
What you described is factually incorrect. The filibuster is parliamentary rule. However, the Byrd Rule, blocks legislation if it possibly would increase significantly the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term or is otherwise an "extraneous matter" unless a 60 vote threshold is met.
The key difference is that the Byrd Rule is law, not just a rule of the senate. So McConnell cannot waive the rule.
But the Byrd rule can be waived by a 60-vote threshold. What evidence is there that this was ever even attempted?? To my knowledge, McConnell never brought up the issue, nor did Schumer insist upon it. As far as I can tell, this never even came up. I can't find any documentation that Democrats raised points of order about this during the last shutdown. And how would a less than one month-long continuing resolution (which is what happened 3 weeks ago) "increase significantly the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term"?? The Byrd rule seems to have played FAR more a role in the tax bill, as it is main reason certain middle-class exemptions couldn't be eliminated until 2027. I don't see how it applies to a 3-week stop-gap continuing resolution at all. This rule IS the reason for many things in the attempted ACA repeal and the tax bill. I can't find a single article about it that applies to the recent budget debates. The only thing I can find is that the Byrd would LIMIT what could be done in reconciliation (51 votes), but it would not eliminate the ability to use it entirely.
But that's the point, the reason we live by continuing resolution is the Byrd Rule. Otherwise they need to go through the reconciliation process.
Also, I find it odd that it is McConnell's fault for not exercising the nuclear option in order to... overcome complete intransigence by the other side.
Given the Senate is the only place where Democrats currently have any power, I don't think going nuclear is a good move for anyone. If McConnell did go nuclear, you'd be more upset than anyone.
I wouldn't care at all. McConnell went beyond nuclear the moment he didn't allow a hearing for Obama's Supreme Court pick (ANY Supreme Court pick) and effectively stole the seat in one of the most ridiculous acts in the history of this country. McConnell destroyed the US Senate as an institution the moment that happened. The filibuster has already been eliminated in almost every situation where it matters anyway. Cut the crap and be done with it once and for all I say. The Democrat's "power" (such as it is, or isn't) in the Senate didn't help in any regard to Gorsuch, or the tax bill. I suppose the middle-class exemptions being on the books til 2027 is a net-plus, but that also played to the advantage of the GOP since it delays the true end-game and repercussions of the tax bill til years after anyone will remember who was responsible. I see no point to the Democrats holding onto the filibuster because it is only useful marginally at best, and at worst (as has been the case this year), it allows the GOP to use it in certain situations that HELP their narrative. Screw it. It's 90% a farce as is.
Let's also keep in mind that Democrats are engaging the the exact behavior the GOP paid NO price for the entire last 6 years of the Obama Administration. There was a stone-wall put up against anything Obama tried to do. It was a strategy of total obstruction (ADMITTED total obstruction). They paid no price for it, and taught us all that it worked. But, once again, Democrats are supposed to bring a feather duster to a gun fight, and roll over. Which they usually do anyway, like last night. Which doesn't much matter because they have no leverage. Which equals no power.
Actually, the GOP did pay a price. That price was actually the first modern dissolution of the filibuster, by Harry Reid: when it applies to lower court appointments. If we are looking for a culprit for the dissolution of the senate as an institution, the filibuster for lower court appointees was the proverbial Arch Duke Ferdinand.
I agree with Senator Paul and others here that it is entirely hypocritical to be against Obama's deficits for 8 years and then as soon as you gain power add to the national debt with the first budget you pass. If the Republicans do pass this budget, then their tax reform wasn't a tax "cut" at all: it was simply a tax deferral that will be paid for by future generations.
@jjstraka34 Well, Democrats still *do* have agency, since you need 60 votes to pass this budget. They were responsible for the last shutdown, because they refused to vote to keep the government open unless they got a vote on DACA. DACA is an entirely unrelated issue that has nothing to do with the spending bill. PS: Pleaaaaasse do not watch Thom Hartmann. You can find better sources than that!
Republicans waived the 60-vote rule on every major political battle of 2016 EXCEPT the budget, which McConnell can do with a wave of his hand. Like he did on Gorsuch, every Obamacare repeal vote, and the tax bill. But not the budget?? Forget that noise....we've eliminated the filibuster on every major piece of Senate business for an entire year, just be done with it. Beyond that, they are not in charge, and don't OWE the Republicans votes when they are offered so input on anything for an entire year, and offered nothing in return for their votes. Republicans wanted to be in power, so be in power. Run your damn government. That includes finding the votes THEY need if in fact THEY decide on an arbitrary basis to all of a sudden think the 60-vote threshold is meaningful when it's suits their media narrative. It wasn't applicable to any other major fight of last year. McConnell and Ryan decide every bill that does or doesn't come to the floor. Democrats are simply expected to lay down on the train tracks after being shut out of all government process for a year. Which they often do, for the sake being the adults in the room.
This is a common misconception, so let me just share this:
What you described is factually incorrect. The filibuster is parliamentary rule. However, the Byrd Rule, blocks legislation if it possibly would increase significantly the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term or is otherwise an "extraneous matter" unless a 60 vote threshold is met.
The key difference is that the Byrd Rule is law, not just a rule of the senate. So McConnell cannot waive the rule.
But the Byrd rule can be waived by a 60-vote threshold. What evidence is there that this was ever even attempted?? To my knowledge, McConnell never brought up the issue, nor did Schumer insist upon it. As far as I can tell, this never even came up. I can't find any documentation that Democrats raised points of order about this during the last shutdown. And how would a less than one month-long continuing resolution (which is what happened 3 weeks ago) "increase significantly the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term"?? The Byrd rule seems to have played FAR more a role in the tax bill, as it is main reason certain middle-class exemptions couldn't be eliminated until 2027. I don't see how it applies to a 3-week stop-gap continuing resolution at all. This rule IS the reason for many things in the attempted ACA repeal and the tax bill. I can't find a single article about it that applies to the recent budget debates. The only thing I can find is that the Byrd would LIMIT what could be done in reconciliation (51 votes), but it would not eliminate the ability to use it entirely.
But that's the point, the reason we live by continuing resolution is the Byrd Rule. Otherwise they need to go through the reconciliation process.
Also, I find it odd that it is McConnell's fault for not exercising the nuclear option in order to... overcome complete intransigence by the other side.
Given the Senate is the only place where Democrats currently have any power, I don't think going nuclear is a good move for anyone. If McConnell did go nuclear, you'd be more upset than anyone.
I wouldn't care at all. McConnell went beyond nuclear the moment he didn't allow a hearing for Obama's Supreme Court pick (ANY Supreme Court pick) and effectively stole the seat in one of the most ridiculous acts in the history of this country. McConnell destroyed the US Senate as an institution the moment that happened. The filibuster has already been eliminated in almost every situation where it matters anyway. Cut the crap and be done with it once and for all I say. The Democrat's "power" (such as it is, or isn't) in the Senate didn't help in any regard to Gorsuch, or the tax bill. I suppose the middle-class exemptions being on the books til 2027 is a net-plus, but that also played to the advantage of the GOP since it delays the true end-game and repercussions of the tax bill til years after anyone will remember who was responsible. I see no point to the Democrats holding onto the filibuster because it is only useful marginally at best, and at worst (as has been the case this year), it allows the GOP to use it in certain situations that HELP their narrative. Screw it. It's 90% a farce as is.
Let's also keep in mind that Democrats are engaging the the exact behavior the GOP paid NO price for the entire last 6 years of the Obama Administration. There was a stone-wall put up against anything Obama tried to do. It was a strategy of total obstruction (ADMITTED total obstruction). They paid no price for it, and taught us all that it worked. But, once again, Democrats are supposed to bring a feather duster to a gun fight, and roll over. Which they usually do anyway, like last night. Which doesn't much matter because they have no leverage. Which equals no power.
Actually, the GOP did pay a price. That price was actually the first modern dissolution of the filibuster, by Harry Reid: when it applies to lower court appointments. If we are looking for a culprit for the dissolution of the senate as an institution, the filibuster for lower court appointees was the proverbial Arch Duke Ferdinand.
Because the Republican Senate was refusing to confirm, essentially, ANY Obama judicial appointments. Look at the numbers, it was unprecedented. Then Scalia died, and a President named his pick. And McConnell said "no, we aren't doing that anymore." Furthermore, it was the stated POLICY of every Republican Senator from Orrin Hatch to so-called moderate John McCain that, if Hillary Clinton were elected, she ALSO would not be able to appoint a Supreme Court pick. The official position of the Republican Party is "Democrats do not get to make Supreme Court picks anymore." That isn't hyperbole, it is what happened under Obama and their stated intention if the election had swung the other way. So, even if I take the analogy to Arch-Duke Ferdinand as applicable (which we'll do for the sake of this discussion), it was at least a 50-50 blame game on the assassination (the lower court judges) because nothing remotely like the refusal to hold hearings for Obama's lower-court picks had EVER happened on that level before. And, in the world of World War 1 analogies, the theft of the Supreme Court pick was the War itself. And, as I've said, I don't object to eliminating the filibuster for this very reason. The problem with Gorsuch isn't that he was confirmed without the Democrats being able to use the filibuster. The problem is that was Obama's pick, not Trump's. And nothing remotely like it has ever happened before in American history. I view the Merrick Garland/Neil Gorsuch situation as a defining moment in American history. And not in a good way. Beyond that, I simply do not believe that the filibuster for Supreme Court picks would have been in place for the Gorsuch vote regardless of what the move on the lower-court judges was. I'd bet my life on it. But you are welcome to disagree. I've been waiting and expecting the final shoe to drop on the filibuster for almost 10 year. So I'm simply resigned to that outcome.
The Republicans definitely should have been holding confirmation votes on Obama's court choices. They could have voted "no" to keep him from appointing anyone but they had a duty to hold the votes.
The Senate can always amend or suspend its own rules to reduce any proposed measure to a simple majority. Given this fact, one wonders why they bother having rules at all. If they are allowed to operate outside their own rules then they should just suspend them indefinitely and stop pretending to be bound by any restrictions.
The Republicans definitely should have been holding confirmation votes on Obama's court choices. They could have voted "no" to keep him from appointing anyone but they had a duty to hold the votes.
The Senate can always amend or suspend its own rules to reduce any proposed measure to a simple majority. Given this fact, one wonders why they bother having rules at all. If they are allowed to operate outside their own rules then they should just suspend them indefinitely and stop pretending to be bound by any restrictions.
The whole thing around the myth of the Senate as the "world's greatest deliberative body" is what really grinds my chains, to be honest. It's really not much more than a bunch of arcane parliamentary tactics and fake congeniality. Or maybe they really do all mean it when they say "my friend from the other side". I'd almost feel better if I knew that wasn't true.
No one has actual friends in the Senate, or any other legislative body, for that matter. They may vote with each other to attain a goal but that doesn't mean they like each other.
*laugh* The Mooch was interviewed by David Axelrod and said he wouldn't have tried to cover up Porter's history of domestic violence. He says he would have gotten out in front of the story because, "we're in a society now where everyone's going to find out everything anyway". This is actually true because he knows from firsthand experience that people find out everything these days.
No one has actual friends in the Senate, or any other legislative body, for that matter. They may vote with each other to attain a goal but that doesn't mean they like each other.
*laugh* The Mooch was interviewed by David Axelrod and said he wouldn't have tried to cover up Porter's history of domestic violence. He says he would have gotten out in front of the story because, "we're in a society now where everyone's going to find out everything anyway". This is actually true because he knows from firsthand experience that people find out everything these days.
Scaramucci, in the words of David Spade in "Tommy Boy", would try to sell a ketchup popsicle to a woman in white gloves. All things considered, he was possibly the LEAST offensive person who has been through the revolving door of this Administration. His 10 days as communications director were perhaps the only time I was actually entertained instead of horrified by all this.
Hope Hicks, Trump's 28-year old communications director (who replaced the Mooch) has supposedly been dating Porter, AND was the one who crafted one of the statements in his defense. Apparently Trump is pretty pissed at her. Between Trump and Porter, I can only imagine the kind of verbal abuse this woman is taking in both her private and personal life. But then again, this is the kind of stuff that happens when you hire someone who hasn't even reached the ripe old age of 30 to coordinate messaging for the frickin' White House. Above all, behind all the absurdity and corruption, it boils down to the fact that this crew is in WAY over their heads.
The Republicans definitely should have been holding confirmation votes on Obama's court choices. They could have voted "no" to keep him from appointing anyone but they had a duty to hold the votes.
If you're referring to when the lower court filibuster was done away with by Reid, they didn't have enough votes at the time. They were in the same situation the Democrats are in now, not having control of either house or the presidency. Except they were in a worse position (at least until Scott Brown's election) because the Democrats also had 60 votes in the Senate.
It is when one party is in that position when counter-majoritarian rules are most needed. Unfortunately, history has shown that this is also the time when they are most likely to be done away with.
I agree with @Mathsorcerer about many of these rules being pointless (unfortunately). This is no more true than when it comes to the filibuster. If the other party is going to go nuclear whenever you need it most, then what work does the filibuster do in the first place when it comes to protecting the political minority?
I will eventually write why I think the Garland move was completely justifiable (though not for the reasons given by McConnell and company, and not concerning any immediate political concerns) but that is a very in-depth post that I'll need more time to write than I have now.
Comments
@jjstraka34
Well, Democrats still *do* have agency, since you need 60 votes to pass this budget. They were responsible for the last shutdown, because they refused to vote to keep the government open unless they got a vote on DACA. DACA is an entirely unrelated issue that has nothing to do with the spending bill.
PS: Pleaaaaasse do not watch Thom Hartmann. You can find better sources than that!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-spending-bill-good/index.html
If you say you are pleased with the budget, but refuse to vote for it unless you (in the minority party) get your way on a separate issue, it is pretty clear that you should shoulder at least the majority of the "blame" for the outcome. There may be a multicausal outcome, but Nancy Pelosi and her voting bloc are certainly the proximate cause.
After the last shutdown McConnell promised a up or down vote on DACA by THIS date. February 8th. Nothing has happened. The entire thing was a lie. Paul Ryan has no intention of bringing it up at all. And I knew this when it happened. But I suppose the calculation was that after Republicans made a handshake deal about a up or down DACA vote, people would be able to remember events that took place less than 3 weeks ago. But I knew that was fool's gold when it happened. Since Republicans continue to lie through their teeth about any DACA resolution, what the hell are the Democrats supposed to do to force the issue (despite the fact that it won't work anyway)??
And as for THIS shutdown, it is ALL on the Republicans. Ryan can pass any piece of legislation in the universe without a single Democratic vote if he had his caucus in line (which he doesn't, which he never has, which Bohener never had either). And Rand Paul is causing the delay in the Senate by himself right now. The Senate portion will pass the second he stops. And are we seriously forgetting that Trump said earlier this week he would, quote, "love to see a shutdown"?? That happened less than 72 hours ago.
You may want a DACA vote (as do I), but you can't say that the blame doesn't fall on the Democrats feet when they use the threat of a government shutdown to force a vote.
Ha! I didn't think so.
I've heard that America is also number 1 both in Nobel laureates and being killed by lawnmowers.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/02/05/the-strange-story-of-how-tide-pod-eating-went-viral/#6285b1fe4932
*************
The budget deal just got signed. I have to find the term again, but there is a situation which arises in the psychology of groups where the group, collectively, can arrive at a decision which no individual person in the group fully supports.
Don't worry, though--if you didn't get enough of the government shutdown blues this time you will have another chance in late March, when they have to do all this crap all over again.
Now...the people who want something done about DACA can't really be convinced that anything is going to happen, can they? Surely they can't be that naive, right? Trust me--that check is in the mail.
So that was a short Republican shutdown. The next one is March next year? Devious devious they don't have another one scheduled until after the 2018 midterms.
This is a common misconception, so let me just share this:
What you described is factually incorrect. The filibuster is parliamentary rule. However, the Byrd Rule, blocks legislation if it possibly would increase significantly the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term or is otherwise an "extraneous matter" unless a 60 vote threshold is met.
The key difference is that the Byrd Rule is law, not just a rule of the senate. So McConnell cannot waive the rule.
For more info, see point number 7 in this Vox article:
https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2015/10/28/9603518/byrd-rule-planned-parenthood
https://www.americanactionforum.org/print/?url=https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/budget-reconciliation-primer/
While I emphasis with both parents (as I want the best for my family as well) their actions are wrong. So my proposal is creating a path for DACA members. They do not have a right to be in this country, however it is not their fault they are here. A similar example is a man who was adopted as a baby from South Korea at around four months. His parents abused him, he was sent to foster care. As an adult he broke the law. Neither his adoptive parents, nor did his foster parents ever apply for him to become a permeant US citizen. He was deported to South Korea, a country he does not know with a language he does not speak. He came to this country legally.
So we come with the issue of DACA. If it was a matter of simply handing out citizenship (or permeant VISAS) parents will bring their children to this country so they have a chance of a better life. They love their children and want them to have a better life. If there is a guaranteed path to stay in legally (without earning it) most parents will take it. I do not fault the parents for wanting a better life for their children. That is the difficulty about a permeant solution which is fair to Dreamers, but does not create a never ending cycle. Ideally I would also like a world where the first person could gain legal employment which pays enough to live on and the second paragraph guy was not deported.
I personally would lean in favor of finding a way to keep DACA members in the U.S. I believe there are many viable paths to citizenship. So while we may disagree with how we view things we both agree on wanting them to be able to remain in the United States.
Also, I find it odd that it is McConnell's fault for not exercising the nuclear option in order to... overcome complete intransigence by the other side.
Given the Senate is the only place where Democrats currently have any power, I don't think going nuclear is a good move for anyone. If McConnell did go nuclear, you'd be more upset than anyone.
Let's also keep in mind that Democrats are engaging the the exact behavior the GOP paid NO price for the entire last 6 years of the Obama Administration. There was a stone-wall put up against anything Obama tried to do. It was a strategy of total obstruction (ADMITTED total obstruction). They paid no price for it, and taught us all that it worked. But, once again, Democrats are supposed to bring a feather duster to a gun fight, and roll over. Which they usually do anyway, like last night. Which doesn't much matter because they have no leverage. Which equals no power.
If people want to see how Democratic legislative priorities would have played out, they should have elected them. CHIP and DACA wouldn't even be discussions we are having, because neither would have been allowed to expire or been changed. Both would have been par for the course. This country elected Republicans, so issues that would have stayed as the uncontroversial status quo under Democratic governance are now boiler-plate issues.
The Senate can always amend or suspend its own rules to reduce any proposed measure to a simple majority. Given this fact, one wonders why they bother having rules at all. If they are allowed to operate outside their own rules then they should just suspend them indefinitely and stop pretending to be bound by any restrictions.
*laugh* The Mooch was interviewed by David Axelrod and said he wouldn't have tried to cover up Porter's history of domestic violence. He says he would have gotten out in front of the story because, "we're in a society now where everyone's going to find out everything anyway". This is actually true because he knows from firsthand experience that people find out everything these days.
Hope Hicks, Trump's 28-year old communications director (who replaced the Mooch) has supposedly been dating Porter, AND was the one who crafted one of the statements in his defense. Apparently Trump is pretty pissed at her. Between Trump and Porter, I can only imagine the kind of verbal abuse this woman is taking in both her private and personal life. But then again, this is the kind of stuff that happens when you hire someone who hasn't even reached the ripe old age of 30 to coordinate messaging for the frickin' White House. Above all, behind all the absurdity and corruption, it boils down to the fact that this crew is in WAY over their heads.
It is when one party is in that position when counter-majoritarian rules are most needed. Unfortunately, history has shown that this is also the time when they are most likely to be done away with.
I agree with @Mathsorcerer about many of these rules being pointless (unfortunately). This is no more true than when it comes to the filibuster. If the other party is going to go nuclear whenever you need it most, then what work does the filibuster do in the first place when it comes to protecting the political minority?