Open Left - Senate

Blanche Lincoln's website says she supports the public option

Chris Bowers — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:20:12 GMT

(Via Wonkroom) Not only did Blanche Lincoln sign a document stating that she supported the public option, according to her Senate website, she is still cool with the public option:

Health care reform must build upon what works and improve inefficiencies. Individuals should be able to choose from a range of quality health insurance plans. Options should include private plans as well as a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goals of a public plan.

And here's a screenshot:

Blanche Lincoln is a liar. She signs a document stating that she supports the public option. Her website says that she would be fine with a public option. And then she does on the floor of the Senate, and promises to filibuster any bill with a public option.

There is still a real possibility that Lincoln could face a high-profile primary challenge next year. The challenger won't be a great progressive, but would still be an improvement over the lying Blanche Lincoln. Further, Arkansas remains a Democratic state at all but the Presidential level, and so that primary challenger might very well have a better chance in the general election than Lincoln.

Let's hope that primary challenge starts sooner, rather than later. Blanche Lincoln is a lair, and needs to be removed from office.

This is also an open thread on the health care vote tonight, which passed 60-39. Senator Voinovich of Ohio did not attend.

Dems reach 60, but three threaten to filibuster final bill with public option

Chris Bowers — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:03:02 GMT

Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln have now, unsurprisingly, joined Ben Nelson and given Democrats 60 votes to proceed on the health care bill. Debate and amendments will begin the week after Thanksgiving.

As part of their statements, Landrieu and Lincoln are both claiming they will filibuster a bill with the current version of the public option. Landrieu is demanding a trigger, and claims that she is working on a compromise of that sort with Senator Schumer. Lincoln did not specify a trigger as part of her demands. They join Joe Lieberman, who has been threatening to filibuster a bill with a public option for nearly a month.

It is worth noting that, several months ago, both Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln singed the HCAN statement of common purpose which states:

Our government's responsibility is to guarantee quality affordable health care for everyone in America and it must play a central role in regulating, financing, and providing health coverage by establishing:
A truly inclusive and accessible health care system in which no one is left out.
A choice of a private insurance plan, including keeping the insurance you have if you like it, or a public insurance plan without a private insurer middleman that guarantees affordable coverage.

So, these Senators are just flat-out liars. Both Lincoln and Landrieu signed a document stating that it was the "government's responsibility to guarantee... a public insurance plan," and now they both claim they will filibuster a bill with a public insurance plan.

Both of them flipped on the card-check provision of EFCA, too. They are just liars. I don't even know why we deal with lying Senators like these. I certainly don't know why we give to organizations that give them money. How can we believe anything either from these two Senators, or from organizations that are funneling them money? They consistently lie to us about the most important, progressive aspects of the Democratic agenda.

Democratic Senator's Chief of Staff asks for help killing the filibuster

Daniel De Groot — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:20:35 GMT

Josh Marshall posts the following email he received from a "Senate Democratic Chief of Staff:"

So, what we might end up with is a Senate Democratic Caucus that holds 98% of its members but still fails to pass healthcare reform, AND a mob of angry progressives who are screaming for the heads of "the Democrats." This isn't fair, but more importantly, it's self-defeating. If progressives REALLY want to transform America, they'll make an issue of the anti-democratic rules of the Senate which make real change virtually impossible.

Someone around here had a crazy idea along those very lines...I would hope this is one Senator's vote liberals could count on should a filibuster reform measure actually ever reach a vote.

Senate likely has 60 votes for motion to proceed on health care bill

Chris Bowers — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:45:00 GMT

It now seems quite likely that the Senate has the 60 votes necessary to force cloture on the motion to proceed with the health care bill. The final three votes Senate majority leader Harry Reid needed were Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu, but all three now appear to be ready to vote "aye." Here is a rundown of all three:

Ben Nelson has stated that he will vote for cloture:
"This weekend, I will vote for the motion to proceed to bring that debate onto the Senate floor," Nelson says. "The Senate should start trying to fix a health care system that costs too much and delivers too little for Nebraskans."

Nelson indicates that this does not mean he is ready to support cloture to pass the bill, but he is willing to let debate go forward.
Earlier today, Senate #2 Dick Durbin stated that Blanche Lincoln has told Harry Reid she would vote yes. Durbin is now walking back that statement, but really, the gig is up for Lincoln.
Anyway, what was Lincoln going to do--oppose even letting the debate go forward and then ask Democrats to vote for her in 2010? Not bloody likely, especially with a prominent figure in Arkansas still considering a primary challenge. Lincoln is highly likely to be a yes.
The last remaining holdout, Mary Landrieu, appears to have secured $100 million in Medicare funding for Louisiana in exchange for her vote.

Right-wingers are in an uproar over this, but really--I am shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling going on in this casino! A member of Congress holding out on a key vote in order to secure funding for her home state or district!? I bet that has never happened before. This is really breaking new ground on Capitol Hill!
Further, while they don't seem to realize it, the right-wing uproar over Landrieu's deal actually makes it virtually impossible for her to vote against cloture now. Due to right-wing publicity, now everyone knows Landrieu is bringing $100 million home by holding out. As such, what is Landrieu going to do--issue a statement that preventing a floor debate on health care is more important than $100 million for Louisiana? Only 9% of Louisianans think she should block the debate. I bet a lot more than that want the $100 million, especially now that everyone has heard about the $100 million.

So, it looks like Democrats have the 60 needed to move forward on debate. The truth is that Reid probably secured the 60 votes before filing the cloture motion. It is a rare day when the leadership doesn't know the outcome of a vote before scheduling it.

The vote will take place tomorrow night, at 8 p.m. eastern, following an all-day debate. Notably, in exchange for the all-day debate, Senator Coburn has dropped his demand that the entire bill be read out loud, which means there will be less droning on C-SPAN2 during Monday and Tuesday of next week.

Weekly Mulch: No Treaty in Copenhagen?

The Media Consortium — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:06:17 GMT

By Raquel Brown, Media Consortium Blogger

Last weekend in Singapore, President Barack Obama acknowledged that a comprehensive international climate deal will not be reached during the climate change summit in Copenhagen. While many might view this as a letdown, lowering expectations might actually be a good thing, as Matthew Yglesias notes for the American Prospect. According to Yglesias, the conference can now be framed as a relative success whatever happens, and that will keep the momentum for climate action going after Copenhagen.
Now that the conference is no longer a shoe-in failure, it's more important than ever that the president is on hand. Obama's attendance will signify that the his administration is committed to passing climate legislation through the Senate.

In the video below, The Real News notes that Obama is simply trying to buy more time. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband, is hopeful that a legally binding treaty that focuses on the clear, main points, like how much to reduce emissions and finance the bill, are still attainable. Even though the Senate has not passed a climate bill, the United States can still play a constructive role in Copenhagen.

But will the international climate summit put any pressure on the Senate to actually pass a climate bill? Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly remains skeptical. "Republican [lawmakers] seem entirely unfazed when told, 'There's a health care crisis, and the entire country is waiting for you to be responsible and do your duty,'" writes Benen. "These same lawmakers will soon be told, 'There's a climate crisis, and the entire world is waiting for you to take your obligations seriously.' Will they find this compelling? I suppose time will tell."

In Mother Jones, Bill McKibben criticizes Obama's weak leadership on climate change. Rather than applying the necessary political pressure to reach a climate deal, Obama has made climate change a second priority to health care reform. Even worse, the Obama administration conceded a sturdy treaty because it was unrealistic that Senate would pass it. McKibben notes that the "White House is starting to use the Senate in the same way that the Bush administration used China - as a scapegoat for doing too little. You don't get to blame the Senate if you haven't pushed the Senate as hard as you possibly can."

Grist's David Roberts argues that the real culprit is not Obama, but the recalcitrant Senate. Calling Obama's leadership a failure is premature because he still has a chance to push reform and make a difference. Roberts also contends that McKibben's analogy of Obama using the Senate like Bush used China is unsound:

"The analogy is apt insofar as China was out of Bush's control and the Senate is out of Obama's. But it's inapt in that there's plenty Bush could have done without China and he didn't; there's plenty Obama can do outside the Senate and he's doing it. When it comes to matters under executive branch control, the progress over the last 10 months have been amazing - new fuel-economy rules, new enforcement of efficiency standards, EPA moving forward on CO2 regulations, energy standards and goals for all federal departments, tons of green stimulus money, national retrofit programs, delay of mining and drilling permits, sustained bi- and multi- lateral international climate diplomacy... the list goes on. Obama is doing what a president can do - more than any president has ever done."

Where do the American people stand on climate action? According to a recent poll featured on Yes! Magazine, 75% of Americans "favor government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, cars, and factories" and 59% of Americans "favor the U.S. taking action on global warming, even if other countries like China and India do less."

To channel this national consensus for urgent climate action, Peter Rothberg of The Nation compiled a guide that outlines how activists can get involved before Copenhagen. The guide recommends tactics that average citizens can use to pressure the key actors at Copenhagen.

Progress at Copenhagen is still possible, but there's no guaranteed outcome. If the U.S. wants to play a valuable role at Copenhagen, it should rise above the fray in Congress and focus on producing a viable pact with international support in the upcoming year. Copenhagen needs to serve as a wake up call that climate change is a collective global problem that needs a collective global solution.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

Why I support the Senate health care bill

Chris Bowers — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:25:16 GMT

In the comments to today's action post, some have asked why I, and other progressives, are embracing the Senate bill. Here is my blunt answer: 45,000 Americans die every year from lack of health insurance. The Senate bill reduces the number of people uninsured in this country by roughly two-thirds, thus potentially saving 30,000 lives a year. The House bill will reduce the number of uninsured by roughly 75%, thus potentially saving 36,000 lives a year.

By no means does this solve the health care problems we face in America, but this is still a real achievement. Throw in the fact that, against all odds, we managed to get a triggerless public option in the bill, and yeah, I'd vote for the Senate health care bill. And yeah, I will work to pass it.

At this stage, passing the bill means getting 60 votes for cloture. This is because Harry Reid has unequivocally ruled out the use of reconciliation for the bill.

Right now, we have 56 votes for cloture, and we need to get the last four frickin' members of the Democratic Senate caucus on board. The Adopt-a-State action is a great way to help do this. Please, join in.

The action is going well, too. By a long, long way, more members of the Open Left community are participating in this action than any non-petition action we have run since the Senate whip count campaign over the summer. Already, ~~nearly 4,000~~ over 7,000 people have clicked through to SEIU's Adopt-a-State action site, just from the email blast. Many more have clicked through from the blog itself.

I'm glad that people are pissed off. I am actually glad that some are not willing to accept the bill. As I wrote earlier today, I believe we need a much larger, hardcore progressive base.

But personally, I support this bill, and I will work to get it passed. If you don't, that's fine, but if you do I hope you will take part in the Adopt-a-State action. This can save lives--a lot of lives--and we are only four frickin' senators away from pulling it off.

Only four frickin' "Democratic" Senators stand in the way of health care reform

Chris Bowers — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:00:00 GMT

The Senate introduced its health care reform bill yesterday, and only four fricking members of the Democratic Senator caucus are standing in the way of passage. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana are the only four remaining "Democratic" Senators who have not ruled out joining with a Republican filibuster of health care reform.

What the #%@*!?!

What's worse, these four don't really give a rat's a$$ what you think, even though their vote affects you. Unless you are a resident of Arkansas, Connecticut, Louisiana or Nebraska, as far as they are concerned, you might as well live on Pluto.

Fortunately, Open Left is teaming up with SEIU to do something about it. Even if you do not live in Arkansas, Connecticut, Louisiana or Nebraska, SEIU has developed activist tools that allow you to contact voters in those four states, and tell those voters to tell their Senators to get on board with health care reform. Fight back and make a difference--sign up and tell one, or all four, of these "Democratic" Senators to pass health care reform with a public option:

Fight back against Joe Lieberman
Fight back against Mary Landrieu
Fight back against Blanche Lincoln
Fight back against Ben Nelson

All the efforts we made to retake Congress. All of the efforts we made to retake the White House. All of the efforts we made to find 51 Senators in favor of health care reform with a public option. It took us fifteen years to get to this point, and we still have to deal with four freaking Democratic Senators who might join with Republicans and filibuster health care reform? Aaarrgghhhh!

I don't know about you, but this really pisses me off. But we can't just get angry, we have to get active, too. Adopt a state on health care now, and make your voice heard no matter who is holding up health care reform.

Adopt Connecticut
Adopt Louisiana
Adopt Arkansas
Adopt Nebraska

Do it. And do it with determination.

Senate Slowly Creaks Forward

Mike Lux — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:30:00 GMT

If you want to stop things from happening, or slow things down to the speed of molasses, being a US Senator is the world's greatest job. And if your entire political party's complete strategy is to kill every single thing proposed, it's a hell of a deal. But ever so slowly, painfully, creakily, the Senate is beginning to move forward on debating health care reform. It looks more and more like Harry Reid has gotten agreement to pass the motion to debate, the CBO has finally scored the bill, and the debate will likely begin next week- or, who knows given all the delaying tactics, maybe after they get back from Thanksgiving. But things are starting to move.

The motion to debate is only the first step, though, in these ridiculous Senate rules. Democrats are as of right now still probably four or five votes short on getting 60 votes to end debate. The same problem we knew about from the very earliest stages of this fight- that four or five conservative Democrats in the Senate and 60 or so progressives in the House are still dug in on seemingly irreconcilable differences on the public option- is still a big fat unresolved problem. Abortion looms as the second most vexing issue. And then there are half a dozen really important and problematic other issues to be resolved. It will be high drama right up to the end, and if anyone tells you they know how it's going to come out, they are fooling both you and themselves.

Reid has a host of alternatives once this gets to the floor, and he and the Speaker and the White House have many different levers of power to use to ram this through if they are willing to use them, so as I have believed all along, I still think something will pass. The question, though, is which factions do the best job of hanging together and negotiating most smartly, and which choices do the key power players make.

Reconciliation is still an option, but even progressives like Harkin and Rockefeller don't want to go there unless they absolutely have to because of the mess it would make of the bill, and the hoops that would have to be jumped through. If both Senate conservatives and House progressives remain dug in, though, dividing these bills into two pieces, the budget related items (including the public option) and everything else, is still the way that Reid might be forced to go. Since that is truly a last resort, he will continue to find the sweet spot that both sides can live with. And if all else fails, he can always just keep the bill on the floor for debate as long as the holdout Democrats want to debate it. Given that the polling numbers I have seen even in conservative states show that voters overwhelmingly want a debate and final vote allowed, that would put those Democrats in a very uncomfortable spot.

I wrote several months ago that ultimately the fate of this bill would come down to who blinks first, House progressives or Senate conservatives. One of them will win the majority of what they want on policy, and one of them will be given a fig leaf that allows them to say I forced a compromise. If it is House progressives who blink, or who let themselves be picked off one by one, not only would the final bill be far worse, I think it will be a political disaster for the Democratic party: bitter division, a disaffected base going into 2010, Republicans attacking full scale with no progressives to raise support and push back. Progressives have already compromised almost to the breaking point, and it is time for the conservatives in the party to do the same.

We pay Sen. McCaskill $174,000 a year for this kind of whining?

Natasha Chart — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:00:00 GMT

Sen. McCaskill explains why the Senate can't be bothered to do anything about the climate bill:

Some senators are skeptical lawmakers will be ready to tackle another huge issue after finishing health care. "After you do one really, really big, really, really hard thing that makes everybody mad, I don't think anybody's excited about doing another really, really big thing that's really, really hard that makes everybody mad," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said. "Climate fits that category."

This is a grownup Senator talking?

Well, dagnabbit, I wish I'd thought of that when discussing future goals with ex-managers during performance reviews. 'No, no, I don't need to move on to any next project, I already did one really, really hard thing this year. And hold my calls, would you? They interrupt my Mahjong Titans time.'

But look, I've seen some of the Senate's other really, really hard work this year, and it sucked. Also, it was clearly written mostly by lobbyists anyway. Which is not only sleazier than having your Mom do your homework, it's lazier. It means these Senators didn't so much as have to supervise the staff manager that told the policy writers to stop screwing around and get that subparagraph on their desk, ASAP. That's like having your Mom's secretary do your homework.

This is some Subgenius level slacking going on up there in the Senate. If these Senators were on the government dime, why, someone might get angry about this. If we were paying for ... oh, right.

In closing, I can only sputter at this point. So I'm turning you over to the immortal inspirational speaking of George W. Bush. Here, in a 2004 debate with John Kerry, our former president laid out a nobler vision of a public service work ethic that, sadly, may deeply disturb Sen. Claire McCaskill:

Senate opt-out public option won't start until 2014, and won't cover abortion procedures

Chris Bowers — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:19:12 GMT

The Senate health care bill is now online. It is a lot to wade through, but I can tell you a few things right off the bat:

The opt-out public option in the bill will not begin until 2014. This is one year later than even the 2013 date included in earlier versions of the bill.
The opt-out mechanism is simply when states pass a law. So, that means both state legislatures (except in Nebraska), plus a Governor's signature. Now, even if the opt-out public option passes into law, conservatives have an extra year to try and organize against it.
The penalty for individuals not purchasing health insurance will be $95, and also will not start until 2014.
Also, while the Senate bill does not include Stupak language in the House bill, the public option will not cover abortion procedures.

Obviously, in a bill this large, these bullet points just scratch the surface. Consider them appetizers.

Senate health care bill covers 94%, costs $849B, reduces deficit by $127B, all over 10 years

Chris Bowers — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:15:22 GMT

1. What's in the bill?
The Senate Democratic caucus has just started their meeting on the merged senate health care bill. Wonkroom tweets, via CNN, that the bill will cost $849 billion, and reduce the deficit by $127 billion, over ten years. Via Quick Hits, it will only over 94% of Americans (31 million), which is up from 83%, but below the 96% (36 million) estimated by the CBO for the House bill. So, it actually has a higher cost per person covered than the House health care bill, with less generous subsidies to match.

Over at Fire Dog Lake, Dave Dayden breaks down what to expect in the bill. It appears that, at least for now, it will include the opt-out public option. The triggered co-op, not reconciliation, remains "Plan B.".

2. Will it get to the floor?
Earlier in the day, majority leader Harry Reid gave Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln a sneak peak of the bill. The only conclusion to draw from this is that these are the only three Senators who have not committed to vote in favor a motion to proceed on the bill.

Ben Nelson seems to be leaning in favor of voting yes, although he doesn't promise to support the bill in its final vote. No indication from Blanche Lincoln. May Landrieu claims to be leaning toward voting against, probably in an attempt to force concessions even before the bill hits the floor. If she does defeat the bill, it will delay the process in the Senate by at least two more weeks, and water it down even further.

3. What is the timeline and process?
The motion to proceed vote is expected on Saturday, in order to give 72 hours between unveiling the bill and voting on it. Then again, I'm not sure why, given that this is the motion to proceed, rather than the vote on the actual bill. A complete description of the process required to bring the bill to the floor can be read here.

Really limping forward here. At this point, the best case scenario is that the debate and amendment process will begin on Tuesday, December 1st.

No Senate reconciliation for health care?

Chris Bowers — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:25:59 GMT

In addition to the release of the Senate health care bill this evening (Senate Democratic caucus meeting, 5 p.m. eastern, with CBO score), the buzz today is that Senate majority leader Harry Reid won't use reconciliation for health care reform. This would reduce the chances of passing a public option in the bill, given that Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu have to committed to voting for cloture on a bill with a public option.

However, the actual article reporting that Reid won't use reconciliation this isn't quite so definitive:

In a meeting Nov. 16 with Democrats who support a Medicare-like public option, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated that he did not plan to try to move a health bill through reconciliation, other Democrats said.
"I'm not going to quote him, but suffice to say, after the meeting was over I thought it was unlikely," said Bob Casey, D-Pa.
Regan LaChapelle, a spokeswoman for Reid, said, "We are not ruling anything out, but Sen. Reid is continuing to work to put together a bill that will garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.

Not sure how much this actually changes anything. "Unlikely" isn't the same thing as "never." Reconciliation rarely came to the forefront in public discussions of health care, which almost always made it pretty "unlikely" that the Senate would use reconciliation. In fact, back in April, the Senate did not even include an option to use reconciliation health care in the budget, and only added it later on at the behest of the House.

The remaining questions are reconciliation are two-fold:

If the current bill reaches an impasse as the final vote nears, is Reid more willing to make concessions to Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson and others than he is to use reconciliation? The answer is probably "more willing to make concessions."
How late in the game can the bill still be split into two, with the regulatory measures passing through 60 votes and things like the public option passing with only 51? The answer here, I believe, is as late as the conference committee between the House and Senate. Right up until the very end.

Really, it was never very likely that the Senate would use reconciliation, so I'm not sure this changes much. Then again, it was never very likely that the Senate would include a public option of any sort in the health care bill, and that did happen.

There is still a long time to go in this process--a minimum of three weeks until the conference committee, for example. If it is apparent that reconciliation is the only way to get a good bill, it still doesn't seem impossible that it can be used. It is a longshot, but it wlways was a longshot.

A complete description of the unfolding health care process in the Senate

Chris Bowers — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:42:47 GMT

The CBO is expected to complete its analysis of the Senate health care bill today. This completes the merging of the Senate Help and Senate Fiannce committee bills, and starts the process of bringing the bill to the floor of the full Senate.

Courtesy of a Senate aide, here is a complete description of the process required to bring the health care bill to the floor of the Senate.

Health Care Process
Leader Reid moves to proceed to an HR bill, which will be the vehicle for the Senate health care bill, and files a cloture motion on the motion to proceed.
Two calendar days later, the cloture motion on the motion to proceed ripens (there has to be one intervening calendar day between the day you file cloture and the day you have the vote)
The cloture vote on the motion to proceed occurs one hour after we convene on the third day (If cloture is filed on Wednesday, the cloture vote is Friday. If cloture is filed on Thursday, the cloture vote is on Saturday, etc)
Assuming 60 Senators vote to limit debate on the motion to proceed and end the filibuster, the Senate invokes cloture on the motion to proceed
Thirty hours after cloture is invoked the Senate will proceed to vote on adoption of the motion to proceed itself (This assumes (a) consent will not be granted to yield back any post-cloture time on the motion to proceed and (b) consent will not be granted to adopt the motion to proceed itself---adoption of the motion to proceed itself is routinely agreed to by UC but Rs could force a roll call vote).
Upon adoption of the motion to proceed, the Senate will be on the Health Care bill
Leader Reid will immediately be recognized to offer the complete Senate substitute amendment to the Health Care bill
Under the rules (Rule XV, to be exact), an amendment must be read before debate can begin on an amendment. (This is routinely waived by UC (you'll often hear Senators ask consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with when an amendment is offered) but Dr. Coburn has threatened that he will not agree to waive the reading of the substitute amendment). Reading the entire substitute amendment would take several days.
Whether read aloud in full or not, at this point, the substitute amendment will be pending and the full amendment process will begin when we return from Thanksgiving Recess.

Relating to the reading of the bill out loud, David Waldman notes:

Democrats, in return, say they'll force Republicans to stay on the floor continuously throughout the exercise. At least one Coburn ally will have to remain on the floor to object to unanimous consent requests to dispense with the reading. Whether they'll be able to require the presence of more than one Republican, though, remains to be seen.

The long and short of it is that, starting today, the Senate health care bill will be debated in public for two weeks before debate starts on the Senate floor. The Thanksgiving holiday, and all of these procedural hoops, delay the process tremendously compared to the House. All of this is just to start debate on the health care bill on the Senate floor, and there will be many more hoops to jump through once that begins.

Why health care is taking so long in the Senate

Chris Bowers — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:54:54 GMT

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed a motion to introduce the health care reform bill to the Senate floor. That motion was supposed to be for today, November 16th, which would have forced the cloture vote on the motion to proceed with the bill tomorrow. If that vote succeeded, it would have started the debate and amendment process on the health care bill on the floor of the Senate tomorrow:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) late Tuesday laid the groundwork for the Senate's healthcare reform debate to start next Tuesday.

Reid filed a motion to introduce the bill on Monday, Nov. 16. Anticipating a Republican objection, the bill would be pushed onto the Senate calendar.

"A motion to proceed to the bill would be in order the next legislative day," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.

However, it is November 16th, and there isn't going to be a vote on the motion to proceed tomorrow. What's taking so long?

Neither the vote on the motion to proceed--nor the 60 votes needed to pass cloture on that vote--will materialize until Reid finalizes the bill, and introduces it to the public with a full CBO report. That process, unfortunately, is ongoing and taking longer than expected. Reid's office is still in talks with the CBO, tweaking the bill to meet President Obama's targets and rounding up the 60 votes needed on the cloture vote on the motion to proceed:

The complex legislation, which Reid is taking a free hand in writing based on two committee-passed bills, must not exceed Obama's specified price tag of $900 billion over 10 years, and it must not add to the deficit. Ultimately it must be able to get the 60 votes needed to advance in the 100-member Senate.

"We've sent them a list of options; they raise questions. We answer them, we raise other questions, they answer them. The goal is to put together the best bill possible," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said Friday. "Senator Reid made a decision a while ago that he wants to get this right before taking it to the floor."

This process has been going on for a month now. The end doesn't seem particularly close, either:

The process is complicated. About 11 p.m. last Tuesday, the budget office sent Mr. Reid 11 pages of questions about his legislation. On Wednesday afternoon Mr. Reid's staff met with budget office officials. And the back-and-forth continues.

Clearly, if Reid has not yet introduced the bill with a full CBO report, they have yet to meet all of their goals in the legislation. They might still not have satisfied the four remaining problem Senators: Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson (Evan Bayh no longer appears to be a member of this group). They might not have met President Obama's goals of cost or deficit reduction. Unions might still be pissed as a tax on high-value health insurance plans. Senate progressives might be upset with the lack of subsidies in the bill. Whatever it is, they have still not met all of the goals, and thus are not ready for the motion to proceed vote.

Still, today Senator Tom Harkin predicted that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed will take place by the end of the week:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, predicted during an interview on the liberal "Bill Press Radio Show" that the Senate will have the 60 votes needed to call up the healthcare bill this week. But Harkin said senators will not begin amending the legislation until after the Thanksgiving break.

Harkin offers up the best case scenario---a vote on the motion to proceed before Thanksgiving. This means that floor debate and amendments will not start until, at the earliest, Monday, November 30th.

To compensate for this latest delay, the Senate is going to stay in session during Saturday's in December. It remains to be seen whether or not the Senate can still pass a health care bill early enough in December to leave a conference committee enough time to reconcile the House and Senate bills before Christmas. If they fail to do so, then President Obama will not sign health care reform into law by the end of the year.

It is a pretty narrow window, raising the possibility that the health care fight will drag on into January.

There is a lot of prep going on to defeat Health Care in the Senate...

btchakir — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:58:54 GMT

"Danger! Danger!"

It's like we're in a Saturday morning kids scifi show... the goodguy robot (in this case MSNBC) is telling us that the Repubs are getting ready to attack the Senate's vote on a Health Care Plan any way they can.

To start with, more than one of the Repub Senators (led by Lamar Alexander - R, TN) have called for new "Town Hall" meetings, like the ones the House members had in August - and it looks like the groups of lobbyists are ready to bus the same people in.
We've heard phrases like "dead on arrival" referring any consideration of the House passed bill by the Senate, and that we have to take it slow... not try to do too much. "Too much" apparently refers to doing anything at all.

We know that Lieberman is out there waiting to jump on a filibuster if there is any government based, non-profit choice option... and a good dozen Democratic Senators who will note vote for it if such an option is missing.

We won't even get into bringing the Stupak Amendment which makes property out of insured women into the Senate Bill.

But this Health Care brouhaha won't be the only problem coming up in the Senate. Chris Dodd's Banking Bill, which is a distinct pull of control away from the Treasury Department and a return to the kind of regulations we lost starting with the Reagan Devastation (oops) Administration.

Repubs are coming out of the walls already, making early attacks on Dodd for allegedly taking money from a housing funder and other unrelated things. Dodd is a tough politician, though, and has been through worse than this.

Then there is Afghanistan... and this could be used, if the Repubs have their way, to completely destroy the entire Obama Administration. Now there hasn't been a final decision on how many troops will be sent to Afghanistan yet... they are hinting at Thanksgiving week as an announcement date... but we're already hearing from the Right that Obama is not capable of making a decision here. Then there are the far left folks ( and frankly, some of us moderates who really remember Viet Nam) who want us to just get out. That doesn't look like it's in the cards. Remember, in the words of Paul Hipp's song "We're Number 37":

Were #1 one in tanks
Were #1 in planes
Were #1 in war with #2 for brains

And I'm afraid our whole government DOES have #2 for brains. (When I was playing the Paul Hipp tune it made me think of playing Country Joe and the Fish's "Feelin' Like I'm Fixin' to Die Rag" and wondering why in Hell we were in Viet Nam killing off our best young men. The difference now is we kill off our best young women, too.)

So tune into C-Span 2 and watch the Senate debates. Keep checking the blogs to get the information the TV news won't give you. And hope that Health Care, Finances, and War get resolved to the satisfaction of THINKING people.

Under The LobsterScope

Reconciliation, not a triggered co-op, should be the fallback plan in the Senate

Chris Bowers — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:58:46 GMT

Even as he is bringing a health care bill with an opt-out public option to the Senate floor next week, Harry Reid is making it clear that he is open to a triggered co-op if he is unable to find 60 votes for cloture:

Even as Senate Majority Leader Reid seeks votes for a healthcare bill with a public option that states can opt-out of, Reid has allowed Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., to work on what one aide called a "Plan B" if Reid cannot line up 60 votes for cloture.

Carper said he and some other senators, whom he declined to name, are working on an alternative public option if the opt-out falls short.

In states where private insurers fail to offer affordable coverage, Carper said the alternative would permit them to set up a non-profit board, likely appointed by the president, to offer insurance.

Yikes! A triggered co-op!

If there is any bright side to this, it lets us all know what is at stake in the Senate fight over the next few weeks. Either we round-up the five problem Senators--Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson--to vote for cloture, or else the Senate will bring a triggered co-op to the conference committee. Those are pretty high stakes.

In addition to applying pressure on the five problem Senators, one move we need to make is to push for reconciliation, not a triggered co-op, as the fallback plan. Right up until the end of the process, the bill can still be split into two parts: one with the new regulations that requires 60 votes to reach cloture, and one with the public option and subsidies that can be included in the budgetary process and which cannot be filibustered.

Since there are at least 51 votes for a public option in the Senate, and since reconciliation is still on the table, if we don't end up with a public option it won't be because we didn't have the votes.

Health care bill with public option to hit Senate floor next week

Chris Bowers — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:00:00 GMT

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will send a health care bill with an opt-out public option, and without Stupak amendment language, to the floor of the Senate next week. From The Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) late Tuesday laid the groundwork for the Senate's healthcare reform debate to start next Tuesday.
Reid filed a motion to introduce the bill on Monday, Nov. 16. Anticipating a Republican objection, the bill would be pushed onto the Senate calendar.
"A motion to proceed to the bill would be in order the next legislative day," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.

Reid announced two weeks ago that this bill will contain a public option. Yesterday morning, he declared that it would not contain the Stupak amendment.

Given the 60-vote culture in the Senate, it will take 60 votes either to remove the public option from the bill, or to add the Stupak language to the bill. This makes either pretty unlikely (especially the addition of the Stupak language).

This does not mean Reid has secured the votes to pass a public option. It does mean that Reid has likely secured the votes to start the amendment and debate process on the health care bill.

Unless the Senate uses the reconciliation process, or unless it uses the nuclear option (which it won't), it will have to pass three, 60-vote threshold, cloture votes on the health care.

The first will be to start debate. The second will be to end debate and proceed to a simple majority vote on the bill. The third and final vote will happen after the conference committee with the House, to end debate on the bill once again and proceed to one last simple majority vote. TNR summarizes the process here.

It is likely that Reid has secured the votes to start the debate and amendment process on the floor of the Senate. There was always minimal opposition to starting debate, even among the five "problem" Senators on health care: Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Blanch Lincoln, and Ben Nelson.

The significance of this is not that Reid has secured the votes to start the amendment and debate process so much as it pushes the timeline for passage of the overall bill forward. If Reid had not filed a motion to introduce the bill this week, then the earliest floor debate would have started in the Senate would have been the Tuesday after Thanksgiving. This ups the process by at least two weeks, and gives real hope that the bill will be passed into law by the end of the year.

Another step forward.

7 Sitting Democratic Senators have already voted to gut the filibuster

Daniel De Groot — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:00:00 GMT

To chime in on Chris' ambitious proposal to kill the filibuster, I'd like to add some context, and a possible starting list for the 7 Democratic Senators that Chris argues would be needed to effect its demise.

When Lieberman announced he would filibuster the public option, it soon emerged that Lieberman had once crusaded against the filibuster, even going so far as to make an effort to significantly limit it in 1995.

Lieberman (and Harkin) introduced a measure that would effectively end the ability of minority to indefinitely delay action, by providing for a series of decreasing thresholds needed to invoke cloture, until eventually a majority (of Senators "chosen and sworn", not present) could invoke cloture. While it was not total destruction of the filibuster, it was the end of the ability of 41 Senators to kill major legislative priorities of the majority.

The amendment was introduced at the start of the 104th Senate, just after Gingrich and Lott swept into power in the 1994 blowout. His timing suggests he agreed with Chris' theory that a Republican Senate majority may be necessary to do this. After all, the Republicans had just taken over the Senate for the first time since 1986, and might be tempted to collude with a few Democrats in giving themselves the power to rule by simple majority. As it turned out, in 1995 they were not prepared to do so. A few days later the amendment was "tabled" (killed) in a roll call vote of 76-19. The 19 who voted "nay" on this motion are the most likely candidates for Senators who would be most open to eliminating the filibuster. Of them, the following Senators are still in office:

Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenburg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (I-CT)
~~Pryor (D-AR)~~ Update: This was the father of the current Sen. Pryor.

Additionally, Leahy (D-VT) and Rockefeller (D-WV) didn't vote on the measure and are listed as "not present."

Ruling out Lieberman of course, that leaves 7 living Democratic Senators who have actually voted to significantly damage the power of the filibuster. Pryor, as a member of the "Gang of 14" (along with Lieberman) in 2005 is probably not going to go along, but if Leahy or Rockefeller joins, and the other 6 still feel the same, Chris may already have his Gang of 7.

Inside, the text of the Lieberman/Harkin amendment, and Lieberman's complete speech that day. I rather hope if Chris' plan comes to pass, another Senator rises to support it and reads it verbatim just to spite Holy Joe.
No links, Thomas links all seem to expire.

Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Pell, and Mr. Robb) proposed an amendment to the resolution (S. Res. 14) amending paragraph 2 of Rule XXV; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. XX. SENATE CLOTURE PROVISION.
Paragraph 2 of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read as follows:
`2. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: `Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?' And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn--except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting--then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
[...]
`(b)(1) If, upon a vote taken on a motion presented pursuant to subparagraph (a), the Senate fails to invoke cloture with respect to a measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, subsequent motions to bring debate to a close may be made with respect to the same measure, motion, matter, or unfinished business. It shall not be in order to file subsequent cloture motions on any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, except by unanimous consent, until the previous motion has been disposed of.
`(2) Such subsequent motions shall be made in the manner provided by, and subject to the provisions of, subparagraph (a), except that the affirmative vote required to bring to a close debate upon that measure, motion, or other matter, or unfinished business (other than a measure or motion to amend Senate rules) shall be reduced by three votes on the second such motion, and by three additional votes on each succeeding motion, until the affirmative vote is reduced to a number equal to or less than an affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. The required vote shall then be an affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. The requirement of an affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn shall not be further reduced upon any vote taken on any later motion made pursuant to this subparagraph with respect to that measure, motion, matter, or unfinished business.'

Perhaps David Waldman (Kagro X) or some other parliamentary expert can chime in, but I believe the mechanism Lieberman was employing would have been able to alter the filibuster on a simple majority vote - he was trying to amend the Senate resolution that sets the rules for the Senate for that Congress. This seems to be another way to circumvent the 2/3 majority needed to change the rules.

And Lieberman's speech:

AMENDING PARAGRAPH 2 OF RULE XXV (Senate - January 04, 1995)
Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, thank you.
I am very proud to join with my colleague from Iowa in cosponsoring and supporting this amendment. A new day has dawned here on Capitol Hill today. A new majority has come to power; but, hopefully, more than a new majority--a new sense of responsiveness to the public, a new understanding of what it means to do the public's business here in Congress, and a new openness to looking at some parts of the operation in Congress which we have previously either not questioned or felt it was inappropriate to question.
I must say that over the last couple of years, as I watched the filibuster being used and, I think, in my respectful opinion, ultimately misused and overused, it seems to me that what had originally appeared to be a reasonable idea was being put to very unreasonable use.
Therefore, I promised myself that if I was fortunate enough to be reelected by the people of Connecticut to return for the 104th Congress, I would do what I could to try to change this filibuster rule, which I am afraid has come to be a means of frustrating the will of a majority to do the public's business and respond to the public's needs. And so when I heard that Senator Harkin had put this program and plan together, I called him and I said, `My distinguished colleague and friend, I admire you for what you are doing.' There are those who undoubtedly will think this is a quixotic effort, that it is a kind of romantic but unfeasible effort.
It is important now to make this effort to show that we have heard the message and that we are prepared to not only shake up the Federal Government but shake up the Congress. And not just for the sake of shaking it up, but because of a fundamental principle that is basic to our democracy, that is deep into the deliberations of the Framers of our Constitution and appears throughout the Federalist Papers, which is rule of the majority in the legislative body. It is this majority rule has been frustrated by the existing filibuster rule. So I am privileged to join as a cosponsor with my colleague from Iowa in this effort.
Mr. President, whenever I explain to my constituents at home in Connecticut that a minority of Senators can by a mere threat of a filibuster--not even by the continuous debate, but by a mere threat of a filibuster--kill a bill on the Senate floor, they are incredulous. When I tell them that now as a matter of course a Senator needs to obtain 60 votes in order to pass a bill to which there is opposition, frankly, the folks back home are suspicious.
When I explain how often the threat of a filibuster has been used to tie the Senate in knots and kill legislation that is actually favored by a majority of Senators--and the filibuster was used more times last year than in the first 108 years of the Senate combined--well, the folks back home honestly think I am exaggerating. Unfortunately, I am not. Those are the facts.
Mr. President, when I entered the Senate 6 years ago, I asked to be briefed by a staff person at the Congressional Research Service on the Senate rules. I wanted to figure out how the place worked.
I must say, after that briefing, I, like my constituents, was incredulous. I had been the majority leader of the Connecticut State Senate, so I had some familiarity with parliamentary procedures, but I must say I did not understand how the Senate's debate and amendment rules were being used to keep the Senate, presumably the greatest deliberative body in the world, from getting things done.
Like many Americans of my generation, I remembered the dramatic filibuster battles of the 1950's and 1960's and assumed that filibusters were relatively uncommon and were employed only in the great issues of the time which divided a country. I assumed--like most Americans, I would guess, drawing from probably the broadest experience America has had with filibusters, which is mainly `Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' when James Stewart stood in that magnificent portrayal and carried out a principled filibuster --that filibusters were to be reserved for only the most significant of legislative battles.
While I quickly learned that while real filibusters are uncommon, current Senate rules allow the mere threat of a filibuster to rule the way we do or do not do business.
The gentleman from the Congressional Research Service used a powerful analogy here. He said to me, `Senator, you have to think of the Senate as if it were composed of 100 nations, each Senator representing a nation, and each nation has an atomic bomb and can blow up the place any time it wants. And that bomb is a filibuster.'
That may make us feel good about our power and our authority, but it is not the way to run the greatest deliberative body in the world. In fact, I state this with some humility because I do not remember the exact quote, I asked the gentleman from the Congressional Research Service, `Is there any precedent for this kind of procedure in the history of legislative bodies?'
He said he thought the closest modern precedent was a Senate that sat in Poland in the 18th century which, because of unique historical circumstances that are not to the point, with approximately 700 members, the rule was that nothing could be done without unanimous consent. That, I hope, is not the model that we aspire to copy here.
What was once an extraordinary remedy, used only in the rarest of instances, has unfortunately become a commonplace tactic to thwart the will of the majority. Just as insidiously, allowing legislation to be killed on procedural votes, as we so often have here in the Senate, protects us from having to confront the hard choices that we were sent here to make and, in that sense, makes us a less accountable body.
Mr. President, this has to end and it will not end unless an effort begins to end it as we are attempting to do here today. As I believe Senator Harkin has indicated, the Senate filibuster rule has actually been changed five times in this century. In most cases, particularly when the changes were substantial, they did not occur the first time the proponents charged the fortress. Perhaps they will not occur on this occasion. But I know Senator Harkin and I are prepared to keep fighting until this change occurs because of what is on the line, which is the credibility and the productivity of the U.S. Senate.
The change that we are proposing, as Senator Harkin has indicated, will make it more difficult for a minority of Senators to absolutely stop, to block, to kill Senate action on legislation favored by a majority of the Senate, but it will still protect the ability of that minority to be heard before up or down majority votes on legislation are taken. It will give the minority opposed to what the majority wants to do the opportunity to educate and arouse the public as to what may be happening here to give the public the opportunity perhaps to change the inclination of the majority.
The procedure of succeeding votes with 2-day intervals, 60 being required, first 57, 54 and finally a simple majority of Senators being able to work its will--our intent here is to give the minority a chance to make their case and to persuade others but not to continue to grant them an effective veto power which they now enjoy.
We recognize that the opposition to this proposal is bipartisan, just as the use of the filibuster rule has been bipartisan. We also understand that as Members of the new minority, Senator Harkin and I perhaps are not the likeliest people to be proposing to limit the powers of the new Democratic minority, but we both firmly believe that regardless of how our resolution may limit our personal options as Members of the minority party in the Senate in the short-term, it is essential that this reform be undertaken now when the problem of filibuster-created gridlock is so fresh in all of our minds.
For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it. We impose it on ourselves. And if I may say so respectfully, it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate.
The Framers of the Constitution, this great fundamental, organic American document considered on which kinds of votes, on which issues the will of the majority would not be enough, that a vote of more than a majority would be required, and the Constitution has spelled those instances out quite clearly. Only five areas: Ratification of a treaty requires more than a majority of the Senate; override by the Senate of a Presidential veto requires more than a majority; a vote of impeachment requires more than a majority; passage of a constitutional amendment requires more than a majority; and the expulsion of a Member of Congress requires more than a majority.
The Framers actually considered the wisdom of requiring supermajorities for other matters and rejected them.
So it seems to me to be inconsistent with the Constitution that this body, by its rules, has essentially amended the Constitution to require 60 votes to pass any issue on which Members choose to filibuster or threaten to filibuster.
The Framers, I think, understood--more than understood--expressed through the Constitution and their deliberations and their writings, that the Congress was to be a body in which the majority would rule.
I know that some of our colleagues will oppose the alteration, the amendment, that Senator Harkin and I are proposing on the grounds the filibuster is a very special prerogative that is necessary to protect the rights of a minority. But in doing so, and I say this respectfully, I believe they are not being true to the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, which is that the Congress was the institution in which the majority was to rule, not to be effectively tyrannized by a minority. And the Framers, Madison and the others, who thought so deeply and created this extraordinary instrument that has guided our country for more than 200 years now, developed the system in which the rights of the minority were to be protected by the republican form of government, by the checks and balances inherent in our Government and ultimately by the courts applying the great principles of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, to protect the rights of a minority that might be infringed by a wayward majority.
So this procedure that has grown up over the years has turned the intention of the Framers, in my opinion, on its head, and in doing so has not only created gridlock but has given power to a minority as against the will of the majority. The majority in the Senate, as reflecting the majority of the people of the United States, has allowed that minority to frustrate the will of the majority improperly.
So I think this is at the heart of the change for which the people have cried out. It is right, and it is fair. It is our belief in that most fundamental of democratic principles, majority rule, that motivates our introduction of this amendment. I am confident that if we ever put this issue, or could put this issue, before the American people for a vote, they would direct us to end the current filibuster practice. Majority rule is not and should not be a controversial proposition. Minority rights are protected by the checks and balances in our system.
Mr. President, it is my pleasure as a Senator from Connecticut to welcome the occupant of the chair as a new Member of the Senate. Perhaps you have observed from your viewing of the Senate before you arrived here that our problem seems not to have been that things move through this institution too quickly, that we hastily trample upon the rights of the minority. The problem, if anything--and it is not a bad problem and it does carry out the intention and will of the Framers--is that there are a lot of checks and balances here, and it is often hard to do the people's business and respond to the people's needs, and the filibuster has made it even harder to do so.
So I thank the Chair and the Senate for their indulgence. I congratulate again my colleague from Iowa for initiating this forthright and, in its way, courageous attempt to change the status quo, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Jan 4, 1995. (59.) 141 CONG, REC. 38 (1995) (statement of Sen. Lieberman)

How we can destroy the filibuster

Chris Bowers — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:23:20 GMT

For months, I have been calling for the complete elimination of the filibuster in the Senate. Many Open Left commenters have agreed upon the need and desirability for its elimination, but one question remains: is there any realistic hope of rounding up 51 Democratic Senators to actually destroy it?

I have been thinking about this for a while, and I do actually have a realistic action plan to make it happen. It contains four steps:

Build an activist base. The first step is to build a base of progressive activists who support eliminating the filibuster. This is done by making the case about how the filibuster prevents progressive governance in America.
Public education campaign through calling bullshit. The next step is to use the activist base to engage in a public education campaign. This effort will be centered on calling "bullshit" whenever a member of Congress or the media claims that 60 votes are needed to pass legislation in the Senate. We use emails and phone calls to those pundits, reporters and members of Congress to make them admit that 60 votes are not actually needed, given the nuclear option.
Get other progressive blogs and organizations to support the campaign. As the public education campaign continues, we work to gather endorsements to eliminating the filibuster from as many progressive organizations as possible.
Get seven Democrats in the Senate to support eliminating the filibuster, even when Republicans are in the majority. The fourth and final step will be to gather public commitments from seven Democratic Senators to support the elimination of the filibuster through the nuclear option, even if the push to eliminate it comes when Republicans are in the majority.

As soon as step for is achieved, the campaign will be won. This because a public commitment from seven Democratic Senators guarantees that the filibuster will be destroyed once Republicans retake the Senate, which will happen eventually.

Back in 2005, Republicans had up to 48 Senators in favor of destroying the filibuster for judicial nominees. In the end, they were only denied by the defection of seven Republicans who helped form "the Gang of 14." If we can secure seven Democratic Senators who support eliminating the filibuster, once they are in the majority, Republicans cannot be stopped by such a gang ever again. Hell, it is pretty unlikely that there would even be seven defecting Republicans Senators next time around, given that the party is in the midst of successfully purging any member of Congress with even a whiff of moderation about them.

Once we have seven Democratic Senators in support, they will collectively present a letter to the entire Democratic Senate caucus stating "either destroy the filibuster now, or see it destroyed when Republicans are in charge." At that point, I would hope that Democrats would respond by destroying the filibuster while they still have a majority. However, if we have to wait until Republicans are in charge, so be it. Either way, we can nuke it with only seven Democratic Senators in support.

So, that's how we win the campaign. It may very well require Republicans winning back the Senate, but over the long-term it is necessary for progressive governance.

If GOP wins 3 Senate seats, and Dems don't destroy filibuster, then Dems can't govern after 2010

Chris Bowers — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:45:00 GMT

After eight years of Bush, and fourteen years of either Bush or a Republican Congress, the current legislative fights over health care, climate change, and stimulus spending are a breath of fresh air. Even if the type of legislation we are achieving is inadequate to solve the scope of the problems we face in those three areas, at least progressives actually have a role in crafting legislative policy now. That is something we haven't been able to really say since 1994.

It also won't be something that we can say after 2010, if 51 Senate Democrats don't join together to abolish the filibuster at some point between now and January, 2011. If Republicans make a net gain of three Senate seats or more in the 2010 elections (which is pretty likely according to current polling), Democrats will simply not be able to achieve cloture on any major legislation put before the Senate.

The watered down stimulus package passed the Senate with only 61 votes. The watered down health care and climate change bills will pass the Senate with somewhere between 60 and 62 votes. This is a pattern we will continue to see on every major piece of legislation before the Senate, since only Maine Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are willing to compromise with Democrats at all. It also means that there is no hope of compromise with Republicans if they net only 3 seats in the 2010 elections.

It is possible that Mike Castle and / or Rob Simmons might be among the new Republican Senators, and that they might be willing to compromise with Democrats on major legislation. Even so, a net loss of only three Democratic Senate seats will give Mike Castle and / or Rob Simmons effective veto power over the entire Democratic legislative agenda, much in the way that Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu and Olympia Snowe wield that veto power right now.

If Democrats wish to continue to govern after 2010, the only sure-fire path is for 51 Democrats to use the nuclear option to end the 60-vote culture of the Senate.

If only 51 votes are needed to pass legislation through the Senate, it would effectively be the same thing as Democrats gaining 10 seats in the Senate. No matter what political price Senate Democrats may face for the apparent hypocrisy or partisanship of destroying the filibuster, it can simply never equal to a net Senate gain of ten seats. We are just not going to lose ten Senate seats because we destroyed the filibuster.

Further, given the crises we face both as a country and as a species, allowing an even more conservative Republican Party to regain a veto over American policy is far, far worse than any esoteric argument about the "deliberative" tradition of the Senate. Further, after the way Republicans have acted in 2009, if anyone still thinks that meaningful bipartisanship can be achieved on major legislation, they are living in a fantasy world.

Engaging the fight over health care, climate change, stimulus spending, and other major legislative priorities is good. However, it is likely that this will all come to an end in only thirteen months if the 60-vote culture of the Senate remains in place. Getting rid of the filibuster--which can be done with only 51 votes--is necessary to ensuring continued Democratic governance beyond 2010.

How it works in the extended entry
How it works: For those who don't know, here is how it works:

The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

Any filibuster can be defeated with only 51 votes using this Senate procedure. Anyone who remembers the 2005 fight over the nuclear option knows this.

A plan to destroy the filibuster: For those who think this campaign cannot be won, I have written up what I believe to be a plausible plan to get 51 Senators to invoke the nuclear option, and destroy the filibuster.