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
amendments.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.
>> MikeN said, on January 6th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
>> If the majority is willing to give the minority power, they will have more of a case to make that the minority is being obstructionist.
What a bizarre standard.
The real standard is… how many bills did the minority obstruct?
Answer: the GOP broke all records, by a wide margin.
Greg Allan==there is every reason in the world to offer single issue no amendment bills. In fact, that is the expected result when a simple majority rules. The House responds to hot headed “of the moment” low information voters. This repeal of the well labeled “jobs bill destroying Obama Healthcare Bill” perfectly matches the Tea Party goal and objective. It will also highlight those in the Senate who will be Puke targets in 2012.
Its perfect for its purpose.
Silly to think otherwise.
bobbo,
I used to loudly advocate for single issue bills, so I’m sympathetic to what you say.
But now I wonder if it’s practical in a country the size of the US.
Wouldn’t there be hundreds of thousands of individual bills if they did this? Each one with their own debate and amendments? Is this practically possible?
#23 He did say except for the poor. If they can live off that amount, you can too. It’s pretty simple really, about 50% of Americans no longer pay Fed. taxes.
Greg Allan==ha, ha. I hadn’t thought of that issue. Is your characterization accurate? That many “discrete” issues–even if each pork item would be pressured off the menu?
There is always a way. Batch approval of individual bills? If the work load is really that numerous and diverse, maybe Congress could only focus on the more important issues? If bills were single issue, would the need for amendments be reduced? Who knows. Maybe this would cause a shift to the committee structure having more responsibility and respect?
Hey!==maybe there are pro’s and con’s to every approach taken? We could look to those states that have single issue voting. It must work in its own fashion, just as voting on 2000 page unread bills work in their fashion?
You call a filibuster? American filibusters rarely go over two days. In Canada, the Ontario Legislature had a filibuster last nine days.
Yes, Canadians are better than you.
http://netrootsmass.net/selise/senate-filibuster-reference-list/
Of more than 400 filed amendments on health care, less than 30 came up for a vote, and only 2 were substantial. Harry Reid used the process called ‘filling the tree’ to preempt Republican amendments, as well as filing cloture motions when there was no filibuster. In addition, amendments required 60 votes to pass.
The Majority Leader has used his powers to block Republican input on legislation. The Majority Leader is always the first to be recognized on the Senate floor, and he can use that power to offer a series of Democrat amendments to pending legislation in a manner that prevents Republicans from offering any of their ideas. This is called “filling the tree.” According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Majority Leader Reid has employed this tactic a record 44 times.[3] He has used it to block minority input into legislation three times more often than the previous Majority Leader, and more than the past six Majority Leaders combined.[4]
Extensive use of filibusters is a proper response to such tactics.
>The Boehner is going to propose a repeal of >healthcare reform without allowing any amendments.
>If you’re not a hypocrite, I expect you to condemn >this effort to repeal healtcare reform in no >uncertain terms.
Ha ha ha. So the Democrats run roughshod over procedures to pass an unconstitutional bill, and when repeal is tried, then they claim the minority should be given power? I suppose you will object to filibusters of judges nominated by a president who filibustered judges?
CBS News covered this tonight. Happened to notice it while out to eat with my family.
Stop trying to be JCD and AC wrapped up into one idiotic bundle.
#46
I agree about Canadians, by the way.
I might be wrong, but I don’t think the GOP has actually filibustered during the first 2 years of Obama’s term. The mere threat had the Democrats on the run.
Unsurprisingly, I would play it the opposite way. Force some idiot to read the founding documents until his voice goes out, and then repeat until there are none left.
Then a prez with nuts could say: “Here is a photo array of the idiots halting the national business. There they go, reading historical documents(probably for the first time) at a time of peril.”
At the very least it would ruin some weekends.
Re flat tax…the tax structure in the USA is, in part, designed to prevent the richest elite from becoming a permanent ruling class. That’s precisely the reason for an estate tax. Having seen the results of such a class in England, the founding fathers worried about this quite a bit, at least some of them did. We’re headed that direction again, and in England it didn’t end well.
The rich elite pundits (specifically Rush) have spun this into a “populist” argument about jobs and a bunch of other crap. …because it affects Rush personally and he has the power to make others carry his water. He’s brilliant in that way. (suckers…)
Re “germane” amendments…one benefit is to prevent poison pill amendments, such as the GOP attempted to add to the original First Responders bill. Both parties do this all the time, but that’s the best example I can think of.
25, Bobbo,
So you say.
I agree taxes are a “necessary evil” for necessary things. The problem lies in liberals often times want to make entitlement programs a necessity when they clearly are not.
And is it fair to tax someone disproportionately because they have exercised their pursuit of happiness within the laws better than others? Nope.
Penis envy is never a good reason to use government to extort things out of someone. Those same people probably don’t live within their means and don’t have much for a savings.
“In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other.” [Voltaire]
Owning a house is not an entitlement. Eating steak and caviar is not an entitlement. Buying a car every 4 years is not an entitlement. Unrestrained consumption by those people is probably the root cause of their problems rather than the “rich” guy who learned to grow his money better than those who squandered it.
I agree. Many of those politicians buy votes by promising entitlements as a right / necessity to the masses. We need to focus on as-required instead of trying to make everything “free”. IMHO, the public education system is the root cause for why the masses are ignorant enough to buy into those promises.
“Do we really think that a government-dominated education is going to produce citizens capable of dominating their government, as the education of a truly vigilant self-governing people requires?” [Alan Keyes]
For the most part I agree with that last comment except for the social-engineering part. Government should not be doing any social engineering (or what others call justice). The ONLY form of social engineering I would prefer is a Meritocracy. Anything other than that won’t be a fairer way to reward the best and brightest in this country.
31, Dallas,
Penis envy is not a valid reason to be unfair. You should tax people on their consumption and not their productivity / accumulation of wealth.
I have no intentions on going to a Communist country. I fully intend to exercise my right to vote to get as many liberals out of office as possible. Anyone but a liberal.
Focus on individual consumption rather than income. It’s not a hard system to figure out. You should be asking yourself why politicians and lobbyists abhor the fair tax system and want to keep the current system going on as long as possible.
My point was on fairness. Liberals abhor fairness because they want equal outcome. This is a big reason why they all pretty much have penis envy.
51, Olo Baggins of Bywater,
In theory. Problem is it affects many small business owners as well. This approach stunts economic growth, reduces potential full-time employment, and raises the costs of goods and services.
We need to stop taxing productivity / income and simply go to a consumption-based tax system.
The founding fathers were around for the sixteenth amendment? Wow!
Taxing people’s productivity and income is a populist issue. If you must have an income tax system, then the rate should be flat for everyone except the poor.
So what? Are you saying it doesn’t affect anyone else outside the “elite” class?
#31 You say you are focused on fairness, and other peoples’ perceptions of your genitals, but you’re actually just exchanging one type of free rider for another.
The benefits of living in an advanced society do not center on the ability to buy consumer goods. Pick any third world place that gets on the news mostly for how much it sucks. I’ll bet you anything that you could find a newish Mercedes, computer, phone, and nice clothes in a few hours of minimal effort. Having that stuff will make you feel better, but it doesn’t magically transport you to the US.
People should be paying taxes out of their income because they are benefiting while they earn it. The “value added” isn’t contained in the products you buy. It is added to your quality of life.
If you remove the government from having an active role in policing the market I can tell you exactly what happens: somebody else shows up and does the same thing for a higher cost.
As a practical matter, say we did get a VAT tax. Would that apply to all purchases, especially investments? Or would consumption only be defined as stuff that hits poorer people disproportionally?
Sorry, Dallas, wrong delivery. I was speaking to #53-#54 and incorrectly addressed my post to you.
Guyver, I agree with everything you have said and criticize you only for responding at all and for being reasonable. You are actually sliding into a liberdrool TRAP with all that namby/pamby high mindedness.
No body should have to pay taxes of any kind. Its the cornerstone of FREEDOM that everyone should keep, and thereby be motivated, everything they earn. The simple fact is, everything should be run by private enterprise: the most effective engine of wealth creation the world has ever seen.
Even the Constitution has gone way too far in creating a socialist frame of mind where people who are too lazy to work demand food, clothing and shelter. These are charitable ends, not governmental ends.
The logic is inescapable: that government is best that governs least ego that government that doesn’t exist is the best form of government there is. EVIL societies that tax themselves to raise an army and perhaps plunder our shores will be just that: EVIL. We should be pure. PURE I TELLS YA!!!!!
I have everything I want and have worked very hard all by myself to get it. Parents should teach their own kids to read, why should there be a tax system for education? Doesn’t make any sense to tax people without kids to pay someone to teach kiddies their own parents want to do for free anyway. Just NO SENSE at all to do that. Just another demoncratic wedge putting the State between kiddies and parents while stealing from hard working non-kiddies families. Just terrible.
Every socialist program is like that: always better if people do for themselves. Its more individualized and allows more people to be free. Democracy: its greek root is “theft by the majority.”
In my post I said I supported taxation with as little social engineering as possible. You say you would allow “some” as for meritocracy. THAT is a slippery slope: what is merit except what some group of elites force on the majority who don’t so think? If the majority think something has merit, let them pursue it individually. No, Guyver, you are just a closet SOCIALIST!!!!! My allowance for social engineering was just the recognition that ANY tax has a social engineering consequence and that is the only appropriate role for social engineering: the unavoidable consequence, not the stated goal. Silly of you to force your socialist views on FREEEEEEEE PEOPLE. no wonder you post here on DU. Shameful.
I’ve got mine, screw you==with the most Christian intent. Alfie, can you give me a high five?
Yea, Verily!
55, Chris,
People can control the manner in which they consume and thus can control the manner in which government extorts money from them. In other words, the people can vote with their wallets much to the dismay of politicians and lobbyists.
People have no control over how the government singles out their income bracket because they make more money / got promoted. There’s nothing fair about taxing someone at a higher % tax rate for no other reason than because they’re becoming more financially successful.
Taxing people’s consumption habits is most fair but as I said before lobbyists and politicians won’t go for that because too much power is put in the hands of the people.
A consumption tax (aka the Fair Tax) would be blind to specific items purchased. A 20% fair tax on a pack of ramen noodles would be proportionately the same as a 20% fair tax at a five-star restaurant.
Penalizing someone because they learned to grow their money and not squander is penis envy.
Who said anything about removing the government from playing an active role? You think the government is out of the loop under a Fair Tax system?
I’m not talking about a VAT. VAT taxes on the difference between the cost to the merchant versus the cost to the consumer. I never suggested that.
If you get away from taxing people’s incomes and productivity, you’d see hidden taxes removed from goods and services. If you apply the Fair Tax, it would hit EVERYONE in the same way. That is fair.
Give EVERYONE (tax payers and the poor) a monthly pre-bate to cover the basic necessities of life per geographic area and family size. Once you burn through that, it’s all on you as per your lifestyle.
The only thing that would upset liberals at this point would be rich people who choose to live a frugal lifestyle (even though it’s none of anyone’s business). Or if poor people insist on consuming steak and caviar even though they cannot afford it.
Guyver==I couldn’t agree more. I’m even gonna start with a high five. xxxxx . There ya go!
Yes, people choosing their own level of consumption in order to keep government in line: BRILLIANT!!!!!!!
People “controlling the manner in which they consume.” My, my, my. Couldn’t think of a more empowering way to express the notion=====but, 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?
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?
YOU KNOW, the more I think about it, there is something UNAMERICAN about people too poor to pay their fair share of taxes. They are human leaches and don’t deserve the liberty that only successful people enjoy. Screw them I say, maybe they will learn that important lesson and pass it along to their kiddies so their kiddies will appreciate what the Super Rich have given them thru the PURE kindness of good Christian charity. That way, they won’t grow up thinking America gave them anything and they will know they have to do everything on their own or thru the kindness of the Super Rich. America: land of the kiss up the asses of your betters. It will even fit on that statue.
Ain’t it great to be an American where your individual effort is rewarded?
I think so. I’ve got mine, c’mon poor people, stop being lazy and work for it.
57, Bobbo,
Our government has obligations it must meet as per the Constitution. I did not suggest that everything should be done by private enterprise.
So humans are naturally EVIL in this day and age? LOL. Pretty strong words. And somehow government run by an oligarchy of EVIL people is somehow better? Give me a break.
Whatever you or I accumulate is no one’s business but our own. Parents that I know of teach their children to share. That being said, what people do with their fortunes for charity is a personal choice.
The federal government should get out of the business of education. The states were doing fine without the aid of the federal government. I didn’t suggest homeschooling.
Are you smarter than a fifth grader?: http://tinyurl.com/2aq5gzn
So employers are now a group of Elites? LOL. Most businesses are forced to operate using a quota system due to equal opportunity laws. These are mandated because somehow meritocracy is racist (because it excludes people who grew up in a terrible school system). Rather than trying to pass the buck, why don’t we just fix the root cause? The public education system sucks. Stop with the social engineering and forcing employers to hire people who would otherwise not be competitive.
Sure equal opportunity is well-intentioned, but the unintended consequences of this social engineering is forcing employers to hire marginal people. There is no need in this day and age to compel someone to look at an applicant’s ethnicity, gender, or orientation.
The majority as in “free” universal health care? LOL. Yeah right. Looks like the majority just put the liberals in check. You think Obama running to the middle like Clinton did is an accident? I’d like to see how 2012 will pan out. Obama could be another Carter.
At least the liberal agenda is showing signs of falling apart.
Rep. Jay Inslee confused about Constitution: http://tinyurl.com/22pvna2
Shameful for you to forget the federal government’s constitutional obligations and enumerated powers. I thought you were smarter than that.
I don’t understand the Christian intent part. Are you assuming I’m a Christian? I’m not into religion nor atheism. Both are faith-based.
As for the I’ve got mine. It’s none of your business what others have. You’re just trying to somehow justify why you think someone else’s business should be yours.