It’s kind of odd that after the Senate spent the full day talking about changing the rules to either eliminate or reform the filibuster, there are no articles, as of 7:30am Pacific time, on the front pages of CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, or CBS news. Not sure what is going on but the subject seems to be actively ignored. I was hoping to find some news as to what eventually was decided. Seems only the Daily Kos is covering it.

Here’s a summary of rule changes proposed:

Clear Path to Debate: Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Proceed
Makes motions to proceed not subject to a filibuster, but provides for two hours of debate. This proposal has had bipartisan support for decades and is often mentioned as a way to end the abuse of holds.

Eliminates Secret Holds
Prohibits one Senator from objecting on behalf of another, unless he or she discloses the name of the senator with the objection. This is a simple solution to address a longstanding problem.

Right to Amend: Guarantees Consideration of Amendments for both Majority and Minority
Protects the rights of the minority to offer amendments following cloture filing, provided the amendments are germane and have been filed in a timely manner.

This provision addresses comments of Republicans at last year’s Rules Committee hearings. Each time Democrats raised concerns about filibusters on motions to proceed, Republicans responded that it was their only recourse because the Majority Leader fills the amendment tree and prevents them from offering amendments. Our resolution provides a simple solution – it guarantees the minority the right to offer germane

Talking Filibuster: Ensures Real Debate
Following a failed cloture vote, Senators opposed to proceeding to final passage will be required to continue debate as long as the subject of the cloture vote or an amendment, motion, point of order, or other related matter is the pending business.

Expedite Nominations: Reduce Post-Cloture Time
Provides for two hours of post-cloture debate time for nominees.

Post cloture time is meant for debating and voting on amendments — something that is not possible on nominations. Instead, the minority now requires the Senate use this time simply to prevent it from moving on to other business.

  1. Guyver says:

    59, Bobbo,

    what of the simply vendor who wants to sell his 200 foot yatch, helicopter included, without the burden of a luxury tax? Surely any such consumption tax is limiting the freedom of buyers and sellers? You are only thinking of the freedom to purchase, what of the freedom to sell?

    So now you’ve demonstrated a potential need of the IRS if we switched to a Fair Tax system. To change names on the title to said items would incur a consumption tax.

    I’m sure you can try to find some way to insist this would still be unfair.

    I think you are being very short sighted. OBVIOUSLY consumption taxes are wrong because they prevent all people from buying yatches as they may choose to do?

    How so?

    YOU KNOW, the more I think about it, there is something UNAMERICAN about people too poor to pay their fair share of taxes.

    I never said the poor should pay. In fact, I excluded them more than once on earlier posts.

    Ain’t it great to be an American where your individual effort is rewarded?

    Yup! Until the liberals get a case of penis envy.

    I think so. I’ve got mine, c’mon poor people, stop being lazy and work for it.

    As opposed to what? Government social engineering by redistribution of wealth? BRILLIANT! What a way to improve our economy! LOL. Regardless, sometimes it’s more of a matter of working smarter not harder. If you want to live in that big house, own a new luxury car, eat steak and caviar anytime you want you most certainly need to work for it. But I get it. You liberals believe everyone should be entitled to such things without working for it.

  2. bobbo, as a REAL conservative says:

    Guyver==that is a complete DODGE you offer up there: “I’m only following the constitution.”

    Well, I got news for you bucko–the constitution allows for the Fed to make laws. Why aren’t you supporting all the laws that apply?

    You pick and choose your BS like the undigested corn in a load.

    Yes–“the law” including the law of taxation and the law of programs all pursuant to the majority will of the public for: “the general welfare” aka “society.”

    The warp and weave of a tightly integrated society does not well suffer the thread pulling “taxation is theft” mindset of short sighted LIEberTARDS. Once you admit the “general welfare” purpose of society, arguing as you do is only a sophisticated “I’ve got mine-screw you.”

    Speak against the specific excesses, the fraud, the corruption. Arguing the “philosophy” make you a fool. Yes, it makes you sound just like me: a REAL republican.

    Foolish Hooman. Wise up.

  3. chris says:


    Putting a national 20% point-of-purchase tax on all goods is basically a VAT tax. You can call it something else, but it is the same idea.

    I am confused how personal income taxes could possibly cause a hidden tax or price increase in goods and services.

    Most businesses pay their employees a salary. Whether those monies are taxed or untaxed is unimportant to the the business, it isn’t their money anymore so why would they care?

    What you’re really after is a way to defer tax collection until the absolute last second. That ignores that products you buy don’t magically appear.

    They are made by some operation in a physical place. The people that run this operation need regular energy, water, public safety, sanitation, communications, and links to transportation networks. Even if those services are provisioned by private groups the government still has to have some people out there checking that stuff is done right. That costs money.

    There would be a bunch of strange effects too. Under your system the government wouldn’t make any tax revenues off of exports. Since the products are being consumed elsewhere they don’t exist for taxing purposes. So an export producing factory pays no taxes. Nice to be one of those, I guess. On the other hand, imports would bring tax revenue for products created in another country.

    These exchanges of revenues would also bring a much harder edge to international trade disputes.

    Also, I think this would balloon costs in a severe way. Think of the production chains that make stuff, many hands can be involved. Adding 20% to the prices of the input at each step would be silly.

    I’m guessing that you’d totally forgo taxes on the materials and energy consumption of a factory, so that only the end-user is paying tax. That would mean that for some purchases, ones not intended personal use, would be tax exempt.

    This doesn’t look fair OR simple. It would unworkable in practice because it would be easy to game the system.

    Here is what I would do. Get an LLC charter and declare my kitchen to be a restaurant. I would scrupulously charge myself 5 cents per meal, and happy kick up a shiny penny for Uncle Sam.

    Sounds “fair” to me! 🙂

  4. Dallas says:

    The unemployment rate is still over 6% and it’s already friday.

    With Boner and Teabaggers now controlling the House, I expected much better. It’s time to kick these goons out.


Bad Behavior has blocked 18655 access attempts in the last 7 days.