1781

jeffd, for all upon which we disagree, we agree on this. They - Republicans, Democrats, anyone in Congress - live to avoid anything controversial and seek to pass bills that they are very sure everyone will approve of, i.e. they just want to do whatever they need to do to keep their cool jobs.

They’ll blame this on the Republicans, but they’ve got a bill that passed the Senate and they’d rather back down and blame Republicans than pass what has taken all this time to get through the system. They can pass the HCR today, without any further Senate votes.

They choose not to.

1782

Huh JeffL? I don’t know how liberal JeffD’s representative is, but it seems implied his representative would vote against the senate version because it’s not progressive enough, but now doesn’t have to worry about it because he or she has someone else that will block the legislation.

Hence, the necessity of JeffD’s call. It doesn’t seem like a representative seeking “to pass bills that they are very sure everyone will approve.” Sure, it’s a representative trying to get an outcome they want while pinning the blame on someone else, but that’s just politics.

1783

Cue October Campaign commercial. Congressman Smith said the Senate Health Care bill would harm working families and hurt the poor. Tax increases on workers with health insurance shouldn’t be a part of Health Care Reform. Then Congressman Smith changed his mind and voted to harm working families. It’s time to stop the Harm. Vote for change and congressman Jones.

how many Dem Congressman have gone on record opposing and criticizing big chunks of the Senate Plan? Then they have to swallow their criticism and vote for it? Bad times ahead. Members will get pounded by their own quotes.

Someone much smarter about politics also pointed out to me that Obama’s trip to MA showed that the President can’t save Party Members. You can’t argue “Let’s all hang together and we’ll be ok” when the Pres. can’t save Teddy K’s seat in Mass or the gov in NJ.

Finally, no matter whether you think people are ignorant or it’s the libs who don’t like health care, the fact remains that the current health reform bill is very, very toxic.

Very good chance the bill is scaled back to just insurance reform.

1784

When you’re going to try and crystalize a debate, it’s usually best if you try to draw from actual things that are actually said. There is no comparable evidence from “other democracies.” You’re not going to find a test case that matches the mood, political atmosphere, cultural predilections, and subject matter divisions. Everything about this subject is going to be an extrapolation of theory and observed behavior. I’m not claiming that I can predict the future, but I don’t see a whole hell of a lot of benefit to opening up the system to potential harms when that won’t do the first thing to solve the problem you’re trying to address. It’s like changing the tire on your car after the check engine light comes on. For a worse tire. I don’t know what the hell you’re on about with the history thing - I didn’t bring it up, and it’s not really germane to the discussion of whether it’s a good thing or not to require supermajority endorsement for significant political actions.

I think Aaron Burr probably qualifies, given that it’s kind of, you know, his fault. The language allowing the action went into effect in 1806 - not 1830. Further, your argument cuts both ways - even if we grant that it was a bunch of gorillas chewing on used typewriter ribbon that cobbled together the foundations of the filibuster, that wouldn’t make it a bad idea. Your claim was that the founders clearly and specifically did not endorse requiring supermajority approval for government action - a claim belied by your own evidence. Now, do you want me to win the theoretical discussion about the protective aspects of the filibuster or do you want to continue to muddy the discussion with extraneous history?

Are you drunk, man? You asked for an example of a major policy that was effectively reversed after a regime change. I provided you an example of a major policy that was effectively reversed after a regime change. It doesn’t get much more obvious than that. It’s baffling that you would even ask for some sort of evidenciary basis for the claim that in a system that people already exploit like a game participants will attempt to undo actions with which they do not agree as soon as they are afforded the opportunity to do so absent any other constraining action. That’s not an exceptional claim - that’s human nature. That’s how a game is played, and politics today is very much a game. The exceptional claim would be the suggestion that any natural human impulse would prevent such an act. I’ve accounted for social security and medicare for you - not only has the conservative establishment effectively resisted expanding those programs, but had they not been well-established entitlements to important voting minorities by the time they regained any degree of control over the legislature, they very well might have been repealed - we can’t assume that they wouldn’t be because the Democrats maintained a controlling influence for the better part of post-WW2 American history, which was more than long enough for people to start getting their checks. I don’t dispute that once an entitlement comes into being that it is virtually impossible to eliminate, because it is harder to take something away from a person than it is not to give it to them in the first place.

You’ve provided no evidence of anything. The theoretical argument here is yours - your position (the affirmative one) is that we should refine cloture rules to allow simple majority vote to move to the previous question. In defense of that, you (presumably - I haven’t seen it yet) cite a number of examples that do not conform well to the state of the American nation today, or really at any point in history. I provide you an alternative cause for the problem that you are observing (gridlock - the source, in this case, being the polarization of political discourse and coverage and the relative resistance to compromise that is becoming ingrained in the system). I further argue that making the change that you propose provides a route for potential abuse not currently open that is entirely likely to be exploited. I then provide an example of a piece of legislation not protected by filibuster where PRECISELY THE THING THAT I CLAIM WILL HAPPEN IS HAPPENING. In response you stomp your feet and claim that I am somehow demonstrating the opposite of what it is that I am saying. At this point I’ve got one of those little cartoon question marks floating over my head, because I don’t know what the hell brand of moon logic you’re applying to the discussion to reach the point that you have, but whatever it is you’re seeing that just makes it obvious that you’re supposed to give the correction tape to the orangutan isn’t clicking.

You don’t seem to be getting the point - the filibuster right now, if it is doing anything at all, is protecting you from the problem that you’re complaining about. Making it easier to pass laws will only make it easier for crazy people to gin up just enough support to do stupid things, and then for subsequent stupid people to attempt to score points by doing the opposite. It doesn’t have to be passage of laws and then repeal of those laws - what do you think happens when a Democratic congress passes a cap and trade infrastructure, and then a Republican congress implements a number of exceptions to those rules to allow various specific industries to continue to do business the way they currently do, and then a Democratic congress attempts to plug up those new exceptions with some additional specific language? Stability and predictability are good things for a nation and an economy to have as their basis. Limiting change ensures stability. All you accomplish by removing the filibuster from the game is introducing that much more instability into a system whose biggest problem right now is its constant roiling internecine strife.

Right now you’re ready to piss your pants in abject rage because you can’t have the toy you want because mommy won’t buy it for you. Your response is the rough equivalent of filing a false report of child abuse and having your mommy carted off to jail. You can’t solve the political climate with a fucking procedural vote. This is not a video game - the stage does not reset once you have beaten Bowser. The rules are not the problem that you are wrangling with here - you’re simply transferring your frustration from the people playing the game to the rules of the game they’re playing.

1785

FYI - the number for the Congressional switchboard is (202) 224-3121. If you want the House to pass HCR, call that number and ask for your rep’s office. You’re going to get a staffer, but it’s also going to make you heard. Email isn’t effective; make the phonecall.

1786

I believe this is the case. Everyone’s going to walk away from this bill and, though it won’t work, they’re going to blame republicans come the election season.

Total and complete failure to position the bill for what it does to help Americans vs. how republicans are positioning it (COMMUNISM! SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!). The smug attitude that 60 votes would let them do whatever they wanted is to blame here.

1787

Short version:

Brian: if we repeal the filibuster, Congress will just start repealing the previous sessions’ legislation as soon as the majority shifts.

Jeff: Can you show examples of this happening? Other countries? Examples in US history?

Brian: Other countries are different! The Bush-era tax cuts!

Jeff: These tax cuts weren’t repealed by the new majority, they were designed to expire after 10 years when they were passed. Most were actually extended by the new majority, only the tax cut on the highest bracket will expire. Basically the opposite of what you say happened.

Brian: THAT JUST PROVES MY POINT!

Yeah, I’m done with you. You’re some combination of crazy and ignorant, I can’t figure out the ratio. Either way, you’re wasting my time.

1788

My congressman is Pete Hoekstra – nothing will be effective.

1789

I have a slightly different take. The people who are enmeshed in the game score points by winning elections and seats and important committee memberships and news cycles. Legislation is useful as a method to occasionally pay off a special interest so as to get money to win another election. Major legislation in the interests of the nation, however, is too scary to actually follow through on. It might change the rules of the game.

I think that if whatever party had the majority had the power to actually carry through on their agenda, people would expect them to actually do it instead of just talk about it. If major proposals might actually be implemented, media might perhaps pay a bit of attention to the substance of the proposals, in addition to who’s ahead in points. If nothing major can be done, it really is just a game, so why not make it a sporting event?

Granted, the above is a bit of a caricature, but it’s one that I see becoming more true over time.

1790

I think that’d be a good idea, but judging by Frank’s comment, the party is panicking and looking for the exits. Combine that with the House liberals anger over the bill already being watered down (like a lot here) and I don’t expect it to happen.

1791

Well, I just called my Congressman, Earl Blumenauer, D, OR, and talked the staffer’s ear off about getting the Senate bill passed verbatim. Told her that unless the Dems actually get something done with HCR Democrats will be reamed at the ballot box this coming November, that it’s going to be 1994 all over again.

1792

If the parties were reversed, and it was the Republicans in this spot with a huge House majority, the bill would pass by the end of the day.

1793

Kevin Drum: Pass The Damn Bill.

I agree. Sure, the Senate bill isn’t perfect. Nothing ever is. But the political situation has changed and it’s now the only game in town. It’s beyond belief that we could get this close to a century-old goal of liberalism — we are, literally, just a hair’s breadth from the finish line — and then allow the most significant social legislation of the past 40 years to slip from our grasp just because we’re tired and pissed. All we need is one roll call vote in the House. That’s how close we are to passing this genuinely historic bill. One vote. Then the next day we can start in on the next 20 years work of improving and finishing what we’ve begun.

We can’t allow this to fail now. We can’t let the Fox/Drudge/Rush axis win. So call your congressman. Go organize a rally. Write a letter to the editor. Lobby your union president. Do something. Do it now. Tell them: Pass the damn bill. Pass it now.

Referencing Chait:

They’re angry, they’re tired, they’ve lost interest in weighing the merits of a decent compromise option versus a catastrophic failure, and most of all they want somebody else to deal with it. If they fail to pull themselves together, future generations will look back at them, note that Congress had passed comprehensive reform in both chambers, had the backing of an eager Democratic president, and could finish the deal by getting 218 of their 256 Democratic members to sign on, and somehow refused. I still find the idea that they’ll allow this to happen unfathomable. If they do succumb, it will be because some deep and recurrent character flaw rose to the surface at the worst time, once again.

1794

Everyone who wants anything substantive passed needs to call their House member and tell them to “pass the damn bill.” All this talk of “going back to the drawing board,” in an election year no less, is basically a recipe for nothing getting done on this for the rest of Obama’s (first?) term, and for a repeat of 1994 for the Democrats because they’ll have nothing to point to to distinguish them from their opponents.

UPDATE: Now Nancy Pelosi is saying she doesn’t have the votes in the House to pass the Senate Bill as-is. Well, that seals it. Thanks, House Dems, for putting your own individual petty bullshit ahead of the good of the party and the country.

1795

The Democrats cannot blame this on the Republicans now. Well, they WILL, but it will be total BS.

They have a health care bill that the Senate has already passed and does not need a further vote. They have a bill the Senate and the President has signed off on. The Democratic House only has to agree and health care reform is passed.

But the Democrats say no. In fact, they even say no to “pass it and then after it is law we’ll go back and work on parts of it to improve the parts you don’t like.”

At this point I think the Democrats don’t want a health care reform bill. I think they’re afraid it may not be popular and they are happy to blame Brown and the Republicans. Even though they could pass the Health Care Reform Bill TODAY if they wanted to.

1796

I haven’t read the health care reform bill, but is it possible that some of the more progressive members of the House think that it’s worse than doing nothing, for whatever reason?

Arguments for that reasoning have been made further up-thread.

1797

The Democrats are straight up ineffectual wimps. End of story. They are going to get their asses handed to them in November and they’ll deserve it. Unfortunately, as usual we are going to be the ones who suffer in the end because Republicans have no answers either. We are in for a long stretch of hurt, while the rest of the world (wisely) prepares for the post-American empire world.

For godsakes, the big boss just got up on his podium and just started waving his hands around saying, “Don’t look there anymore! Look here! We now hear what you want. WE HATE THE BANKS TOO!” Let’s see anything meaningful come out of that as well. Utterly incompetant and utterly disappointing.

1798

Yeah, fuck the Democrats if they can’t get this done. Honestly I won’t bother voting in November - if these fuckers aren’t going to get anything done with a 9 vote majority in the Senate and a huge majority in the House, then it doesn’t matter if their majorities are smaller (or even if they lose them).

1799

To be fair, there’s all that dust. Dusty dusty. White House: Let’s Let ‘Dust Settle’ On Health Care

The White House will move health care reform to the back burner, in order to “let the dust settle” after Democrats lost their Senate super-majority.

Asked today if health care was on the back burner, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “The president believes it is the exact right thing to do by giving this some time, by letting the dust settle, if you will, and looking for the best path forward.”

On the upside, when Black & Decker wins an annual bidding round and we have the Year of the Dustbuster Cordless Hand Vacuum, we’ll get some good reform then.

1800

I haven’t read the health care reform bill, but is it possible that some of the more progressive members of the House think that it’s worse than doing nothing, for whatever reason?

The reason is that they’re fucking idiots.

Yeah, fuck the Democrats if they can’t get this done. Honestly I won’t bother voting in November - if these fuckers aren’t going to get anything done with a 9 vote majority in the Senate and a huge majority in the House, then it doesn’t matter if their majorities are smaller (or even if they lose them).

There’s some truth here. If they can’t get anything done now, then it doesn’t matter what happens in Nov. They have the power NOW. They need to use it.